Friday, September 05, 2014
" Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, a 2016 formidable candidate’s Time Magazine Op-Ed, (Time) has the political right and left in feeding frenzy. Jennifer Rubin, at the Washington Post has opined that Paul has undergone “a remarkable metamorphosis”, suggesting that the Senator has “flip-flopped” on his positions in the vein of John Kerry. In reading through the post, it is not unnoticed that Rubin has taken Paul’s remarks out of context by using a piece of the entire statement to suggest a valid point. (Washington Post) The comments underneath the article refute the claims by including the whole statement Paul made.
On the left, The Huffington Post weighs in on the subject using the same criteria as Rubin. Igor Bobic, from Talking Points Memo, does so from the left..
What gives? It is the political season and when the major party editorialists assess a “rising star” candidate as being a threat to their political party’s agenda, they do what comes naturally: edit either video or print to suggest a candidate is less than worthy, credible or perhaps downright unelectable.
Paul, to his credit, has addressed every “concern” that has surfaced from the Beltway, and that has their proverbial panties in a bunch. The problem that all of the major parties have at the moment is a combination of denial and an awaking general public – which may thwart their favored candidate’s chances. Tough luck for them, as both Kennedy (JFK) and Reagan suffered in much the same way. With Kennedy it was the fear of a Catholic, and of course, Reagan was a Hollywood buffoon - yet, they both are, perhaps, the most memorable of Presidents, despite their political party’s early angst and a public that didn’t listen to DC.
Paul is not alone in this type of chicanery, as it happens to both candidates on the right and the left, what is unusual about Paul is that he counters these pseudo critiques with calm, reasoned responses – and he has the voice of both the right and the left media, like it or not. That’s bold leadership in the sense that so many valid political hopefuls have not availed themselves of their voice in the past, and it is obvious that is the type of leadership that is needed today – calm, reasoned, forthright and honest.
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Yesterday, the Washington Post announced that they had named Frederick J. Ryan as the new publisher, replacing Katherine Wymouth. The gist:
Politico’s first chief executive, Frederick J. Ryan Jr., a former Reagan administration official now charged with continuing to build the reach of Post journalism through digital initiatives, company officials said Tuesday.(Washington Post)
The hiring of Ryan, 59, ends eight decades of Graham family leadership of The Post and underscores the newspaper’s move into a new era marked by expanded ambitions online and a determination to build a larger national and international audience.
The Post also published Ryan’s bio here, which is worth noting.
What does this mean for the Post? Most likely a more bi-partisan approach to both the print and digital edition, by which those disenfranchised from most print based on biased reporting, may just return. There are few daily newspapers in the U.S. that do not have an obvious political leaning – and have, as a result, seen a steep decline in print over the past two decades. It is, in this opinion, not the “internet” driving the former subscribers away - just ask your center-right neighbor.
Regardless, it is too soon to accurately speculate in which direction the Post will actually go (politically), but there is hope that one day – straight reporting will be found throughout a publication, with the partisanship where it belongs – in the editorial section.
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Pre Troop Deployment - Border Crossings in Texas - image from KUT.org
The first of the National Guard deployed by Governor Rick Perry (TX) - are a bit bored, according to the Washington Post article. The fact that they are watching one of the most heavily trafficked areas, and seeing nothing suggests that someone has done something right.
In further reading the interviews that the article brings to light midway through the article one finds that those who are opposed to the beefed up military presence on the border are far fewer than those that are grateful.
For example: :
The charm of living near cattle ranches and mesquite trees that make up large portions of the Rio Grande Valley is steadily evaporating, residents say.(Washington Post)
“It’s all different. I think the United States is a police state now,” said Javier Peña, a former police officer in Rio Grande City who had just finished breakfast at the Texas Cafe.
However, the one detractor was far outweighed by those grateful for the presence: :
“Will the border ever be secure? The answer is that it could be. But the federal government needs to get off the side, get in the game and be a real player and stop pretending,” said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, whose community has seen the brunt of border crossing and drug smuggling.
“When these women and children were crossing our border, it opened all of our eyes up,” Villarreal said. “They’re the more delicate, the more fragile in our society, and they were walking across our border like they were just going through turnstiles at a baseball game.”
Over the years, drug traffickers and others headed north have trekked across his land, with Escobar and his workers usually trying to ignore them. Recently, he said, two men with rifles showed up near his irrigation pump, ordering Escobar’s workers to clear out because there was different work to be done there that night.(Washington Post)
He said he realized how faulty his mind-set had become when the Central American children began appearing on the riverbank, followed now by soldiers with semiautomatic pistols strapped to their fatigues — embodiments of what has become an often surreal lifestyle.
“We’ve been turning this eye away from it for so long that it’s gotten out of control,” Escobar said, adding that he welcomes the National Guard and any other border enforcement. “Now, we can’t handle it. Now, we’re afraid. Now, we want someone else to come in and handle it.”
With further tales of severed heads being found, and grateful border residents, the article, which begins by almost suggesting that the national guard is unnecessary – changes to an endorsement of troops along the border. Also of note is the reduction in crossings in Texas during since the deployment of troops was announced by Governor Perry.
Therefore, one might believe that the border crossings have ceased – not so –they have taken to crossing elsewhere, Arizona, New Mexico, and by boat now into San Diego. (Breitbart) Perhaps if there were some sense in these states, (or specifically the Federal Government – troops would be deployed to the entire southern border at this juncture – especially given the fact that one might see an increase of ISIS terrorists attempting entry.
Monday, September 01, 2014
Elizabeth Warren, Senator (D-MA) image from Elizabeth Warren.com
Elizabeth Warren, known as the darling of the left, apparently has a mind of her own – shame on her. Warren recently suggested that Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that means, should Hamas be hiding bombs in schools and mosques, Israel is right in bombing said building – the left went- insane (Huffington Post).
It is not so much that this blogger would agree with Warren on most issues, but the Senator from Massachusetts has this issue spot on – good for her.
Not too long after the fact that the Senator has some sense of independence from the “herd”, the Boston Globe published ”Federal Agency that Elizabeth Warren Helped Found Rife with discrimination against employees” Obviously, to the Globe, being in on the ground game of an agency makes on complicit it its’ continuing issues. Apparently, the Globe was unaware that Warren, at one point, was one of “those” Republicans! (ABC News)
When one “shops” political parties, left to right, or vice versa, it is generally because on it either a)an opportunist (like so many politicians) or b) genuinely fed up and seeking an alternative – something “different”. Perhaps, Warren might be interested in what the Libertarian’s are about next? Or at best become “unenrolled” from any major party, like the majority of voters from the Commonwealth she represents.
Either way, one might see more articles of the attack nature, given Warren disavowed a run for the Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party in 2016. In few words: Good for her.
ISIS, the rapid Islamic group that has established a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, killing anyone whom they please in the most barbaric manners, including children has taken front and center stage in the American Political area. The question of stopping ISIS in Iraq and Syria by the use of U.S. military intervention has come under some scrutiny by both major political parties. The President has taken his usual steps in being deliberative before he acts, something he has done since taking office. This often leads to missed opportunities and or a worsening of the situation; however, it is his style of being cautious before fully committing U.S. forces.
That cautious quality has the media and both parties in a quandary as politicians’ from both sides of the aisle see the threat of Isis on many levels, not only to the middle east, but to our homeland, as well as Europe and other parts of the world.
NBC News on Senator Feinstein’s remarks that Obama has been too cautious in this situation, suggests that the Democrat from California may be running out of patience, as the public is becoming increasing aware of the real danger that ISIS presents – California being a border state. (NBC News)
CBS News reporting the Presidents delay on strategy - notes that both Republicans’ and Democrats alike are in a quandary over the situation – agreeing with one another.
However, the New York Times, true to the party line, suggests that it is Republican’s only that are politicizing the crisis, and that there is “nothing to see here – move along – the President is in control.
Be that as it may, the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria may need a buffer via the Iraq and Kurdish forces who are in the thick of the fighting. It is, after all, their country, and other than support (air and weapons); ISIS may be dealt with fairly easily – with a little pushback.
The threats being made to the U.S, suggest that those in ISIS already here (See any Chicago newscast about threats being made in that City by said group), might come to pass, however, one has to wonder if those commanding ISIS forces, understand the psyche of the general American public – unlike any nation in the world, where, when invaded, lay down and take abuse, the U.S. fights back.
One might wonder what ISIS would encounter if, with boots on the ground, in say, a border state, say Texas, might meet once they moved to attack. One might not see Texan’s rolling over so easily, ISIS does not understand the basic independent streak inherent in most U.S. citizens. It is not so much that as a nation, relying on the government is primary, it is also not so much that as a nation, there is a political body in sync that makes all deliberations until it is too late. It is more likely that from Massachusetts, to San Francisco, and places in between, Urban-Suburban-and Rural militias would wipe ISIS out – or as one politician suggested – bomb them back to the Stone Age.
Therefore although we may have interests in the Middle East – it may behoove the U.S. to employ air strikes and tactical support there, and shore up protection in the U.S. – otherwise, the citizens of this nation would most likely do it for them. One would suggest that anytime that intelligence suggests that the U.S. is a target, those from both parties, would align, rather than take political opportunities – it is clearly not the way of the United States. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an issue that drives all U.S. Citizens or those hoping to become citizens. Furthermore, the New York Times piece is a bit disingenuous suggesting that this is a situation where Republican’s are politicizing an atrocious entity.