It looks like the theocracy in Iran isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Think about it for a moment.
In the zero sum game of Middle Eastern politics succession issues are normally resolved via the bullet rather than the ballot. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the opposition will have bullets -- lots of them. Then where would the leaders of the current regime go?
Iraq and Afghanistan? Not likely; too many American Soldiers there.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE? They were never fans of Iran's Shiite strain of Islam.
Jordan? Too close to Washington.
Syria? Not terribly secure.
In other words, it's not like they could flee and live out there years comfortably. Moreover, they would feel as if they had targets on their back. (The Mossad, I'm sure, wouldn't mind terminating a few of the mullahs.) Ironically, Iran may be the safest place for them -- as long as they hold power.
Furthermore, think of the shame of fleeing -- just like the Shah did 30 years ago.
So, it's likely that they're going to stay or die trying. In the interim, they will ratchet up the violence to keep the protesters in line.
A lot of blood may be shed, but it may not change a thing.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
John Kerry's To Do List for Today
He's running downfield interference for our suddently inarticulate President -- when the topic is Iran. (A pesky distraction.)
JKF gets extra credit for denouncing unnamed neocons. Good to know that he's not harboring any resentment over his 2004 loss for the White House.
JKF gets extra credit for denouncing unnamed neocons. Good to know that he's not harboring any resentment over his 2004 loss for the White House.
What Bush Wrought
Twenty years ago I had the good fortune to be living in Germany.
You may recall that a wall in the city of Berlin collapsed late in 1989. Although I visited the wall earlier that summer, I had a notion it wouldn't be standing much longer. The wall separated the free people of the west from the oppressed people of the east.
About a quarter century before, President John Kennedy visited the divided city and claimed solidarity with the citizens of Berlin. A couple of decades later, President Ronald Reagan demanded that the Communist party secretary of the Soviet Union (rather than the East German leadership) to tear down the wall.
Both were admirable sentiments; I'm not sure they were persuasive.
But like the walls of Jericho, it came a tumblin' down.
In Iran, there are protesters -- perhaps tens of thousands of them -- defying death threats. Originally it was to denounce a blatantly rigged election and now it's morphed into something more -- perhaps an existential threat to the theocrats that have ruled that nation for the last thirty years.
Some have claimed that President Barrack Obama's recent speech in Cairo have encouraged the protesters.
Get real.
The President's speech may be historic, but it certainly wasn't memorable. For as hyped an orator as he is -- do you recall the takeaway quote? Neither do I.
Over the past several years the Iranians have seen their neighbors -- the Afghans and the Iraqis -- vote. Were those elections perfect? Hardly. But they were fair enough to lead some in Iran to believe that they should have the same opportunity. (And you have to believe that the Iranians think themselves as superior to their neighbors.)
Even in an election where the candidates were approved by the mullahs (who hold the real power).
So you have a situation where the results of a sham election are so obviously rigged (why it would take the Administration time to figure that out is beyond me) the masses have simply had enough.
Now this protests have become something that nobody -- except those who believe in freedom -- could have expected. Or, perhaps the guy who made free elections possible in Afghanistan and Iraq.
George W. Bush.
And he wasn't known for his speeches. Go figure.
You may recall that a wall in the city of Berlin collapsed late in 1989. Although I visited the wall earlier that summer, I had a notion it wouldn't be standing much longer. The wall separated the free people of the west from the oppressed people of the east.
About a quarter century before, President John Kennedy visited the divided city and claimed solidarity with the citizens of Berlin. A couple of decades later, President Ronald Reagan demanded that the Communist party secretary of the Soviet Union (rather than the East German leadership) to tear down the wall.
Both were admirable sentiments; I'm not sure they were persuasive.
But like the walls of Jericho, it came a tumblin' down.
It wasn't the biggest surprise when the wall ultimately fell. By 1989, the Iron Curtain was rusting and East Europeans were scurrying through the cracks. After years, nay decades, of a second class existence -- brought on by an accident of geography -- the populace was voting on foot to greener pastures in the West. After a while you realize that you can only tolerate so much.
In Iran, there are protesters -- perhaps tens of thousands of them -- defying death threats. Originally it was to denounce a blatantly rigged election and now it's morphed into something more -- perhaps an existential threat to the theocrats that have ruled that nation for the last thirty years.
Some have claimed that President Barrack Obama's recent speech in Cairo have encouraged the protesters.
Get real.
The President's speech may be historic, but it certainly wasn't memorable. For as hyped an orator as he is -- do you recall the takeaway quote? Neither do I.
Over the past several years the Iranians have seen their neighbors -- the Afghans and the Iraqis -- vote. Were those elections perfect? Hardly. But they were fair enough to lead some in Iran to believe that they should have the same opportunity. (And you have to believe that the Iranians think themselves as superior to their neighbors.)
Even in an election where the candidates were approved by the mullahs (who hold the real power).
So you have a situation where the results of a sham election are so obviously rigged (why it would take the Administration time to figure that out is beyond me) the masses have simply had enough.
Now this protests have become something that nobody -- except those who believe in freedom -- could have expected. Or, perhaps the guy who made free elections possible in Afghanistan and Iraq.
George W. Bush.
And he wasn't known for his speeches. Go figure.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Type In "Walpin" and...wait
Type in "Gerald Walpin" in the search engines of the New York Daily News and the New York Times and you get, well, nothing.
The New York Post, in contrast, has a couple of references to him.
In some circles, what Mr. Walpin has to say, seems like a pretty important deal.
One could conclude that the Daily News and the Times are running interference for the President since Mr. Walpin is highly critical of the man who fired him.
Some may miss the era of the big city newspaper when it comes. (And it will come.)
I won't.
The New York Post, in contrast, has a couple of references to him.
In some circles, what Mr. Walpin has to say, seems like a pretty important deal.
One could conclude that the Daily News and the Times are running interference for the President since Mr. Walpin is highly critical of the man who fired him.
Some may miss the era of the big city newspaper when it comes. (And it will come.)
I won't.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Intel Failure?
Perhaps.
Given the cautious approach that Team Obama is taking to the events unfolding in Iran, one can't help but wonder if they have been blindsided.
For an election that was held (and called) on a Saturday, it was definitely disappointing to hear the Vice President say, in a Sunday morning interview, that they (the administration) were going to review what occurred.
(Unfortunately the interview wasn't all that it was cracked up to be -- Biden invited David Gregory over to his house afterwards. I could never imagine Russert and Cheney yukking it up after a MTP episode. )
Biden's tepid response suggests that our layers of intelligence didn't list that the election would be stolen for Mahmoud Amhadinejad and tens of thousands would protest as a probability.
There is, of course, the political calculus. President Obama, doesn't want to be in a position where his support would diminish the standing of the protesters, nor does he want to be seen as losing a chance to nudge an internal reformation of the Iranian regime. There's a reason why he voted "present" so often as a state senator.
In any event, it seems that he had to start at square one or somewhere close to it.
As to the way forward -- it seems that they believe that flexibility is the key to indecision.
Given the cautious approach that Team Obama is taking to the events unfolding in Iran, one can't help but wonder if they have been blindsided.
For an election that was held (and called) on a Saturday, it was definitely disappointing to hear the Vice President say, in a Sunday morning interview, that they (the administration) were going to review what occurred.
(Unfortunately the interview wasn't all that it was cracked up to be -- Biden invited David Gregory over to his house afterwards. I could never imagine Russert and Cheney yukking it up after a MTP episode. )
Biden's tepid response suggests that our layers of intelligence didn't list that the election would be stolen for Mahmoud Amhadinejad and tens of thousands would protest as a probability.
There is, of course, the political calculus. President Obama, doesn't want to be in a position where his support would diminish the standing of the protesters, nor does he want to be seen as losing a chance to nudge an internal reformation of the Iranian regime. There's a reason why he voted "present" so often as a state senator.
In any event, it seems that he had to start at square one or somewhere close to it.
As to the way forward -- it seems that they believe that flexibility is the key to indecision.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
House of Hypocrisy
From the Associated Press:
MANCHESTER, Tenn. (AP) - Bruce Springsteen astonished the Bonnaroo crowd with a passionate three-hour performance, offering sweat and rock 'n' roll to inspire, he said, in "hard times."
...
"We didn't come all the way down to the beautiful Tennessee hills just to rock the house," said Springsteen early in the performance. "We came down here tonight because we want to build a house. That's right. Right here in this field. ... A house of love. A house of hope."
Sure, but given the ticket prices that were charged, the only thing being built was Springsteen's bank account. Big time.
BTW, we're certainly living in the "Age of Obama" when part of the price of admission is a mandated charitable donation.
MANCHESTER, Tenn. (AP) - Bruce Springsteen astonished the Bonnaroo crowd with a passionate three-hour performance, offering sweat and rock 'n' roll to inspire, he said, in "hard times."
...
"We didn't come all the way down to the beautiful Tennessee hills just to rock the house," said Springsteen early in the performance. "We came down here tonight because we want to build a house. That's right. Right here in this field. ... A house of love. A house of hope."
Sure, but given the ticket prices that were charged, the only thing being built was Springsteen's bank account. Big time.
BTW, we're certainly living in the "Age of Obama" when part of the price of admission is a mandated charitable donation.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Ruminations
REHAB: Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is being treated -- once-again -- for an undisclosed ailment. The Congressman, the son of the ailing Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, has been treated before for depression, alcoholism, and drug addiction. In a statement, Kennedy noted, "...he will do whatever it takes to preserve his health." Everything that is but resign his seat.
BUS TOSS: It seems that David Letterman was deemed expendable by the folks over at the National Organization of Women. (After all, Letterman is a cantankerous over the hill talk show host.) Too bad they lost their cred when they failed to support Jones, Broderick, and Wiley ten years ago when NOW had a shred of credibility.
DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: Here's how a joke about statuatory rape is now being described: "... and the now oft-repeated joke about Palin’s daughter and Alex Rodriguez..." Given that description, how harmful could it be?
EMPATHY: If Mr. & Mrs. Obama want to dine in the Big Apple and in the City of Lights, go ahead. But in times like these, doesn't it strike one as being a bit out of touch?
INVITES: So much for any plan to invite both Rahm Emanuel and Jeremiah Wright to the same party. Seems the latter has a problem with the former's beliefs. A team of rivals indeed.
YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AT WORK: Regular readers of this blog saw this happening from Day One.
DESPAIR & STATUS QUO: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wins in Iran. If this had been a real election than a simple circus, there'd be something to talk about.
BUS TOSS: It seems that David Letterman was deemed expendable by the folks over at the National Organization of Women. (After all, Letterman is a cantankerous over the hill talk show host.) Too bad they lost their cred when they failed to support Jones, Broderick, and Wiley ten years ago when NOW had a shred of credibility.
DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: Here's how a joke about statuatory rape is now being described: "... and the now oft-repeated joke about Palin’s daughter and Alex Rodriguez..." Given that description, how harmful could it be?
EMPATHY: If Mr. & Mrs. Obama want to dine in the Big Apple and in the City of Lights, go ahead. But in times like these, doesn't it strike one as being a bit out of touch?
INVITES: So much for any plan to invite both Rahm Emanuel and Jeremiah Wright to the same party. Seems the latter has a problem with the former's beliefs. A team of rivals indeed.
YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AT WORK: Regular readers of this blog saw this happening from Day One.
DESPAIR & STATUS QUO: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wins in Iran. If this had been a real election than a simple circus, there'd be something to talk about.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What Biden Is Really Saying...
I'm looking forward to this Sunday's Meet the Press with Joe Biden as the guest.
I expect that David Gregory will be as easy on the Vice President as Lesley Stahl was a few weeks back. If Joe errs, it won't be Gregory's fault. After all he probably enjoys the DC cocktail circuit as much as anyone.
But I will be disappointed if the Veep doesn't say something stupid which will probably be the story of the day on Sunday.
Unfortunately for Joe, there is now the expectation that he will say something silly. His track record demonstrates a proclivity to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Or simply a politically tone-deaf notion. Go here and here and here to check out a few.
Despite the gaffes, Biden is not a stupid man. He's been re-elected a few times to represent the folks of Delaware in the Senate.
By my lights, he's not being served well by his staff. It is a bit of a surprise since his staff was considered to consist of political heavyweights. If so, these heavyweights don't know the first rule of staff work -- don't make the boss look bad. (Somebody should have prepped the Veep on the nature of the new Hudson River Tunnel.)
Of course, the fact that Biden has kept these under-performing staffers says plenty about Joe.
And it will say a lot about Obama if he keeps Biden on the ticket in 2012.
I expect that David Gregory will be as easy on the Vice President as Lesley Stahl was a few weeks back. If Joe errs, it won't be Gregory's fault. After all he probably enjoys the DC cocktail circuit as much as anyone.
But I will be disappointed if the Veep doesn't say something stupid which will probably be the story of the day on Sunday.
Unfortunately for Joe, there is now the expectation that he will say something silly. His track record demonstrates a proclivity to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Or simply a politically tone-deaf notion. Go here and here and here to check out a few.
Despite the gaffes, Biden is not a stupid man. He's been re-elected a few times to represent the folks of Delaware in the Senate.
By my lights, he's not being served well by his staff. It is a bit of a surprise since his staff was considered to consist of political heavyweights. If so, these heavyweights don't know the first rule of staff work -- don't make the boss look bad. (Somebody should have prepped the Veep on the nature of the new Hudson River Tunnel.)
Of course, the fact that Biden has kept these under-performing staffers says plenty about Joe.
And it will say a lot about Obama if he keeps Biden on the ticket in 2012.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Time For Letterman to Pack It In?
Sure.
It's not as if he's funny any more as he resorts to joking about statuatory rape; nor is he bringing in the ratings, either. (He's been losing to Nightline on ABC for crying out loud.)
I think his attraction is the same as Bruce Springsteen -- people remember him for what he was in the 1980's and 1990's -- not for who is now. (Does anyone ever yell at a Springsteen show -- "Hey, Bruce play the new stuff!" I don't think so.)
Curiously both have become hit men for the left as they age (and get richer). Go figure.
I've discussed Letterman's shtick before noting how it's become stale and bitter. There's no need to review it again.
Nonetheless, CBS seems intent to have him on the air for a few more years -- hoping to pick up those who don't get Conan O'Brien's sense of humor. However, with Leno coming on at 10 PM this fall, Letterman may be hurt. (Why stay up to hear jokes at 11:35 when you can hear them at 10 PM?)
With the economy they way it is, you would think CBS would be a bit more careful about how it spends its money on an aging partistan has been.
It's not as if he's funny any more as he resorts to joking about statuatory rape; nor is he bringing in the ratings, either. (He's been losing to Nightline on ABC for crying out loud.)
I think his attraction is the same as Bruce Springsteen -- people remember him for what he was in the 1980's and 1990's -- not for who is now. (Does anyone ever yell at a Springsteen show -- "Hey, Bruce play the new stuff!" I don't think so.)
Curiously both have become hit men for the left as they age (and get richer). Go figure.
I've discussed Letterman's shtick before noting how it's become stale and bitter. There's no need to review it again.
Nonetheless, CBS seems intent to have him on the air for a few more years -- hoping to pick up those who don't get Conan O'Brien's sense of humor. However, with Leno coming on at 10 PM this fall, Letterman may be hurt. (Why stay up to hear jokes at 11:35 when you can hear them at 10 PM?)
With the economy they way it is, you would think CBS would be a bit more careful about how it spends its money on an aging partistan has been.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Your National Security Advisor At Work
The headline writer over at the Associated Press did not do any favors for National Security Spokesmodel*, James Jones, with the headline: "National security adviser: US safer under Obama."
Jones had the misfortune of speaking to the Atlantic Council in the wake of a North Korea's renunciation of the 1953 armistice which ended the Korean War. The timing was akin to a global warming protest delayed by snowfall.
Jones didn't roam too far off Team Obama's talking points reservation, regarding efforts to get out of Iraq, revamping the strategy in Afghanistan, and the campaign to repair the U.S. reputation aroad.
Of course, getting out of Iraq may take several years; a new commander and more troops signifies a new capability in Afghanistan, not necessarily a revamped strategy; and if you apologize enough, I'm sure more folks will like you.
More noticeably -- and in recognition that criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney is getting traction -- Jones offered that Guantanamo has served as a recruitment tool for insurgents and as a result has probably (emphasis mine) created more terrorststs than it detained.
Now Jones would be in a position to know if this was true or not. A few questions should be asked of our vast intelligence capability:
- Is there an upswing in jihadist propaganda on the Internet seeking recruits on behalf of those captured?
- What are those recently captured/detained saying about Guantanamo?
Perhaps Jones is right, (although the use of the word "probably" gives him plenty of wriggle room) but I have yet to see any empirical evidence to suggest that it is true. Yet this assertion -- repeated ad nauseum, corrupts the debate.
We should expect better.
* If General Jones can ride his bike to McLean from the White House for lunch as the national security adviser, it's obvious that he's on board for who he was -- a USMC commandant and a commander of NATO forces in Europe -- so that Team Obama can have a patina of gravitas when it comes to national security. It's difficult for one to think that he's developing strategy.
Jones had the misfortune of speaking to the Atlantic Council in the wake of a North Korea's renunciation of the 1953 armistice which ended the Korean War. The timing was akin to a global warming protest delayed by snowfall.
Jones didn't roam too far off Team Obama's talking points reservation, regarding efforts to get out of Iraq, revamping the strategy in Afghanistan, and the campaign to repair the U.S. reputation aroad.
Of course, getting out of Iraq may take several years; a new commander and more troops signifies a new capability in Afghanistan, not necessarily a revamped strategy; and if you apologize enough, I'm sure more folks will like you.
More noticeably -- and in recognition that criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney is getting traction -- Jones offered that Guantanamo has served as a recruitment tool for insurgents and as a result has probably (emphasis mine) created more terrorststs than it detained.
Now Jones would be in a position to know if this was true or not. A few questions should be asked of our vast intelligence capability:
- Is there an upswing in jihadist propaganda on the Internet seeking recruits on behalf of those captured?
- What are those recently captured/detained saying about Guantanamo?
Perhaps Jones is right, (although the use of the word "probably" gives him plenty of wriggle room) but I have yet to see any empirical evidence to suggest that it is true. Yet this assertion -- repeated ad nauseum, corrupts the debate.
We should expect better.
* If General Jones can ride his bike to McLean from the White House for lunch as the national security adviser, it's obvious that he's on board for who he was -- a USMC commandant and a commander of NATO forces in Europe -- so that Team Obama can have a patina of gravitas when it comes to national security. It's difficult for one to think that he's developing strategy.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Bitterness
You'll learn a lot more about Mike Lupica than you will of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and (the sainted) Colin Powell, the putative topics in Lupica's column, today.
You'll see Lupica for what he is -- another angry white male.
You'll see Lupica for what he is -- another angry white male.
Big Papi and The General
I'm not a Boston Red Sox fan, but I can't help but notice the decline in offensive production by David Ortiz a/k/a "Big Papi." Once a feared hitter, his batting average has now slipped below the "Mendoza Line" and seems to be in free fall. In one game against the Mets this weekend, he struck out three times. The one time he made contact with the ball, he hit into a double play.
Out of respect for his (previously) clutch play, his manager, Terry Francona has had Ortiz bat third. However, it seems likely that he will now bat lower in the order until he gets his numbers up. (And that appears to be a big "if" at this point as he strikes out every four times he bats. )
Officially, he's listed as 33, but there's been a pattern of players born in the Dominican Republican to shave off a few years off. He could be older.
In all likelihood, Big Papi may be on the downside of what was a remarkable few years in Boston.
General Colin Powell, an ostensible Republican, is on the downside of his public life. Since he has never desired to run for public office and has already served as Secretary of State, where can he go?
For better or worse -- history will be the ultimate arbiter -- he was part of the effort that resulted in what we now know as Operation Iraq Freedom. That will be his link to posterity.
Therefore, his concern is limited to legacy maintenance -- being a centrist in a time of tumult rather than the neocon who led us to war. So, with limited, nay, no skills at building a party, he leaps from one Sunday talk show to the other to speak poorly of Rush Limbaugh. Alas, his efforts don't go beyond sound bytes.
The media will always accommodate a disgruntled Republican, especially one with the cachet of Mr. Powell, who is upset about a party that he thinks has swung too far to the right. (Seemingly the Reagan Administration was moderate enough for him, go figure.) He will always have the opportunity air his grievances.
Where Big Papi has tried to be productive, Colin Powell, remains content by simply criticizing the current GOP. In the end, neither is helping his team.
Out of respect for his (previously) clutch play, his manager, Terry Francona has had Ortiz bat third. However, it seems likely that he will now bat lower in the order until he gets his numbers up. (And that appears to be a big "if" at this point as he strikes out every four times he bats. )
Officially, he's listed as 33, but there's been a pattern of players born in the Dominican Republican to shave off a few years off. He could be older.
In all likelihood, Big Papi may be on the downside of what was a remarkable few years in Boston.
General Colin Powell, an ostensible Republican, is on the downside of his public life. Since he has never desired to run for public office and has already served as Secretary of State, where can he go?
For better or worse -- history will be the ultimate arbiter -- he was part of the effort that resulted in what we now know as Operation Iraq Freedom. That will be his link to posterity.
Therefore, his concern is limited to legacy maintenance -- being a centrist in a time of tumult rather than the neocon who led us to war. So, with limited, nay, no skills at building a party, he leaps from one Sunday talk show to the other to speak poorly of Rush Limbaugh. Alas, his efforts don't go beyond sound bytes.
The media will always accommodate a disgruntled Republican, especially one with the cachet of Mr. Powell, who is upset about a party that he thinks has swung too far to the right. (Seemingly the Reagan Administration was moderate enough for him, go figure.) He will always have the opportunity air his grievances.
Where Big Papi has tried to be productive, Colin Powell, remains content by simply criticizing the current GOP. In the end, neither is helping his team.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Another Daily News Error?
Bill Madden, the national baseball writer for the New York Daily News, whose relationship with accuracy can best be described as a nodding acquaintance gets it wrong today.
In a riff where he compares the current Mets manager, Jerry Manuel, with the 1962 manager -- the legendary Casey Stengel, he gets the "that guy" issue wrong.
According to Madden:
According to someone who listened to a recording it appears that Madden misquoted Manuel who actually said "a guy." That's a significant difference.
Don't hold your breath for a correction.
In a riff where he compares the current Mets manager, Jerry Manuel, with the 1962 manager -- the legendary Casey Stengel, he gets the "that guy" issue wrong.
According to Madden:
This seemed especially so on Monday in the aftermath of the Mets' five-error "retro '62" performance against the San Francisco Giants in which Church missed third base, a la Marvelous Marv Throneberry, as he was heading home with the go-ahead run and Manuel referred to him as "that guy" adding: "That's unbelievable. I can't explain why, how or anything."
According to someone who listened to a recording it appears that Madden misquoted Manuel who actually said "a guy." That's a significant difference.
Don't hold your breath for a correction.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Fall of a Bright Liberal
It didn't have to end this way.
Back in the early 1990's Chris Matthews was a columnist for a San Francisco paper -- I forgot which one. In that role, he would appear on those egg-headed conferences that C-SPAN shows when Congress was out of session. I didn't necessarily agree with his views but I had a respect for the way he developed his. A bright liberal guy at the dawn of the Clinton Age.
Given his insights on the ways of Washington -- he was a onetime an aide to Speaker Tip O'Neal -- someone had the idea of making him a talk show host.
In the process a unique talent was converted into a commodity.
Being a talk show host means you have to develop a shtick and Matthews obliged. He would invariably answer the questions posed to his guests and his rapid fire technique showed signs of attention deficit order. (Think: Bill O'Reilly without the warmth.)
Things went well enough; he sold a few books in the process and made a nice living.
But as MSNBC, his network, lurches to the political left; the one time bright liberal has become a hack.
Last night, I took a gander at his show. He had a clock on the upper right of the screen and was counting the time it took for former Vice President Cheney to insult President Obama. As the Vice President began his remarks, he ad-libbed a "Good Afternoon" as he chided the President for being long with his presentation.
Well for Matthews, that constituted a "cheap shot." A cheap shot that came in the first five seconds of the speech. (Apparently that was the "number" for the day.)
I heard and read a lot of commentary yesterday but I have to give it to Matthews -- his insight was, well, unique.
In any event, the end may be near.
Because MSNBC is an incredibly cheap outfit -- the Matthews program is aired twice on the East Coast at 5 and 7 PM. (Fox does the same thing to a degree but it re-airs programs every three hours for the benefit of its West Coast audiences.) Based on the ratings, Matthews comes in dead last for the 25-54 demo at 5 PM and at 7 PM he's third in overall audience. (Fox's "Special Report" has about 1.1 million more viewers.) Spin 'em any way you want -- those numbers are not good.
As I noted, it didn't have to end this way for a formerly bright guy.
Back in the early 1990's Chris Matthews was a columnist for a San Francisco paper -- I forgot which one. In that role, he would appear on those egg-headed conferences that C-SPAN shows when Congress was out of session. I didn't necessarily agree with his views but I had a respect for the way he developed his. A bright liberal guy at the dawn of the Clinton Age.
Given his insights on the ways of Washington -- he was a onetime an aide to Speaker Tip O'Neal -- someone had the idea of making him a talk show host.
In the process a unique talent was converted into a commodity.
Being a talk show host means you have to develop a shtick and Matthews obliged. He would invariably answer the questions posed to his guests and his rapid fire technique showed signs of attention deficit order. (Think: Bill O'Reilly without the warmth.)
Things went well enough; he sold a few books in the process and made a nice living.
But as MSNBC, his network, lurches to the political left; the one time bright liberal has become a hack.
Last night, I took a gander at his show. He had a clock on the upper right of the screen and was counting the time it took for former Vice President Cheney to insult President Obama. As the Vice President began his remarks, he ad-libbed a "Good Afternoon" as he chided the President for being long with his presentation.
Well for Matthews, that constituted a "cheap shot." A cheap shot that came in the first five seconds of the speech. (Apparently that was the "number" for the day.)
I heard and read a lot of commentary yesterday but I have to give it to Matthews -- his insight was, well, unique.
In any event, the end may be near.
Because MSNBC is an incredibly cheap outfit -- the Matthews program is aired twice on the East Coast at 5 and 7 PM. (Fox does the same thing to a degree but it re-airs programs every three hours for the benefit of its West Coast audiences.) Based on the ratings, Matthews comes in dead last for the 25-54 demo at 5 PM and at 7 PM he's third in overall audience. (Fox's "Special Report" has about 1.1 million more viewers.) Spin 'em any way you want -- those numbers are not good.
As I noted, it didn't have to end this way for a formerly bright guy.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Ruminations
SCI-FI: I gave it a couple of viewings but like most of America, I realized that Life wasn't worth watching. They lost me when the hot chick started sleeping with her shmoe of a boss. Another NBC success story.
A GREAT JOB IF YOU CAN GET IT: Seems our National Security Advisor has the time to bike home for lunch. I would guess that all told it probably takes three hours out of his day. Good thing he's unimportant, otherwise he'd be missed.
EXILED: At first, I thought Joe Biden, given his latest goof, was sent to Siberia. He's actually in Serbia.
CAFE CHIP: Something tells me that President Obama's move to increase vehicle fuel mileage is nothing more than a bargaining chip to be used sometime down the road.
RUNNING: I know of some registered voters in New York City getting three to four mailings from the Bloomberg campaign. It's safe to say, he's not taking chances.
SNOWED: Marc Ambinder is keeping an eye on the meme that Obama is easily cowed by his generals. Perhaps, but Bush was swayed by his defeatist brass -- Pace, Casey, and Abizaid. Success in Iraq came when he finally got rid of two and kicked the other upstairs.
IMPOTENCE: As the Senate Majority leader, things can't get any worse for Senator Reid given his erroneous reports, his poor polling numbers, and a President who disses his state's leading source of revenue.
A GREAT JOB IF YOU CAN GET IT: Seems our National Security Advisor has the time to bike home for lunch. I would guess that all told it probably takes three hours out of his day. Good thing he's unimportant, otherwise he'd be missed.
EXILED: At first, I thought Joe Biden, given his latest goof, was sent to Siberia. He's actually in Serbia.
CAFE CHIP: Something tells me that President Obama's move to increase vehicle fuel mileage is nothing more than a bargaining chip to be used sometime down the road.
RUNNING: I know of some registered voters in New York City getting three to four mailings from the Bloomberg campaign. It's safe to say, he's not taking chances.
SNOWED: Marc Ambinder is keeping an eye on the meme that Obama is easily cowed by his generals. Perhaps, but Bush was swayed by his defeatist brass -- Pace, Casey, and Abizaid. Success in Iraq came when he finally got rid of two and kicked the other upstairs.
IMPOTENCE: As the Senate Majority leader, things can't get any worse for Senator Reid given his erroneous reports, his poor polling numbers, and a President who disses his state's leading source of revenue.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Culture of Corruption
Let's see what we have here:
Perhaps.
But the rot is already setting in.
- An "ethics" columnist who doesn't see anything wrong about donating to MoveOn.org; claiming the organization is "non-partisan".
- An economics columnist who can't manage his own finances.
- A past her prime opinion columnist copying and pasting another's work and passing it off as her own. And it's not like this was the first time, either.
- An ombudsman who covers for the paper with a whitewash of an investigation regarding the spiking of a negative report on then candidate Obama's fundraising efforts.
Perhaps.
But the rot is already setting in.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Stenography 101
Helen Kennedy, ostensibly a Daily News Staff Writer, but for all intents and purposes an overpaid stenographer, is credited with a story today on Page 3 of "New York's Number One Newspaper."
She breathlessly cherry picks an "explosive" story that will soon be on the pages of that paragon of journalism, GQ.
Apparently, someone provided Robert Draper, a writer for the magazine, with classified briefing slides during the early stages of the Iraq War. The slides had Biblical verses on them. Odd? Perhaps. However, who is to go on the record and state that these slides are indeed the real McCoy rather than fancy fakes to deceive? I understand that efforts to control the proliferation of PowerPoint technology are failing.
Apparently these quotations worried nameless Pentagon analysts for fear that they would inflame the Islamic world. If anyone was going to get inflamed, it would have happened shortly after the first tanks rolled into Iraq.
Other snippets abound in this "damming GQ article" alleging that Rumsfeld blocked efforts to present Senator Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom. How or why Rumsfeld would care isn't broached. Ms. Kennedy (A relation perhaps? She doesn't tell.) describes the Senator as cancer-stricken. Alas, the senator's cancer was diagnosed long after Rumsfeld left office, so her adjective is used to provoke a reaction rather than to describe.
As you can imagine, the sources are anonymous but the allegations are treated as, well, like gospel.
Tellingly, the liberal media, and the NYDN which sets its editorial sails to those prevailing winds, fails to even bother attempting to contact either the former President or the Defense Secretary for their views. Nor for that matter does Ms. Kennedy bother to independently confirm the allegations herself.
That would require journalistic skills and that's not the job of a stenographer.
Bush and Rumsfeld may be gone, but they will not be forgotten by those who wish to distract us from the current dangers.
UPDATE: Rumsfeld responds. Quite strenuously.
She breathlessly cherry picks an "explosive" story that will soon be on the pages of that paragon of journalism, GQ.
Apparently, someone provided Robert Draper, a writer for the magazine, with classified briefing slides during the early stages of the Iraq War. The slides had Biblical verses on them. Odd? Perhaps. However, who is to go on the record and state that these slides are indeed the real McCoy rather than fancy fakes to deceive? I understand that efforts to control the proliferation of PowerPoint technology are failing.
Apparently these quotations worried nameless Pentagon analysts for fear that they would inflame the Islamic world. If anyone was going to get inflamed, it would have happened shortly after the first tanks rolled into Iraq.
Other snippets abound in this "damming GQ article" alleging that Rumsfeld blocked efforts to present Senator Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom. How or why Rumsfeld would care isn't broached. Ms. Kennedy (A relation perhaps? She doesn't tell.) describes the Senator as cancer-stricken. Alas, the senator's cancer was diagnosed long after Rumsfeld left office, so her adjective is used to provoke a reaction rather than to describe.
As you can imagine, the sources are anonymous but the allegations are treated as, well, like gospel.
Tellingly, the liberal media, and the NYDN which sets its editorial sails to those prevailing winds, fails to even bother attempting to contact either the former President or the Defense Secretary for their views. Nor for that matter does Ms. Kennedy bother to independently confirm the allegations herself.
That would require journalistic skills and that's not the job of a stenographer.
Bush and Rumsfeld may be gone, but they will not be forgotten by those who wish to distract us from the current dangers.
UPDATE: Rumsfeld responds. Quite strenuously.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Ruminations
FOOLS: In an otherwise limp criticism of Wanda Sykes (BTW, has she ever been funny?) Mike Lupica wants you Rush Limbaugh listeners to know that you're mean-spirited. The search for an original insight from the Daily News's resident rabblerouser continues.
PROPS: Eminem valiantly trying to restart his career will take 200 laid off auto workers to see his performance on the Jimmy Kimmel program. In addition to losing their jobs, it seems that they may have also shed their dignity.
YOU'RE FIRED: First, it was Rick Waggoner, now it's David McKiernan. Joe Biden would be wise to keep looking over his shoulder.
THE OTHER SHOE: Little seems to be said about the State Department's role in securing Roxana Sabieri's release which suggests that they were quite involved. The New York Times helpfully spins a tale to the Administration's liking. We have seen the "quid" and time will indicate what the "quo" may turn out to be.
THE DODGER: Roger Clemens broke his silence to advertise, er, criticize a new unflattering book about him. He took the opportunity because he was going overseas on vacation next week. The key question -- does his travel destination have an extradition treaty with the United States?
LONG ARM: A sportswriter suggests a way for Manny Ramirez to make amends to his fans. I suggest he keeps the money. Lawyers to defend him from fraud charges won't come cheaply.
PROPS: Eminem valiantly trying to restart his career will take 200 laid off auto workers to see his performance on the Jimmy Kimmel program. In addition to losing their jobs, it seems that they may have also shed their dignity.
YOU'RE FIRED: First, it was Rick Waggoner, now it's David McKiernan. Joe Biden would be wise to keep looking over his shoulder.
THE OTHER SHOE: Little seems to be said about the State Department's role in securing Roxana Sabieri's release which suggests that they were quite involved. The New York Times helpfully spins a tale to the Administration's liking. We have seen the "quid" and time will indicate what the "quo" may turn out to be.
THE DODGER: Roger Clemens broke his silence to advertise, er, criticize a new unflattering book about him. He took the opportunity because he was going overseas on vacation next week. The key question -- does his travel destination have an extradition treaty with the United States?
LONG ARM: A sportswriter suggests a way for Manny Ramirez to make amends to his fans. I suggest he keeps the money. Lawyers to defend him from fraud charges won't come cheaply.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
The New York Daily News Gets It Wrong (Surprised?)
The New York Daily News committed a big time disservice to their readers by reporting a version of events that conflicted with the official report regarding the Planegate matter. Thomas DeFrank and Kenneth Bazinet do not wrap themselves in glory on this one.
From the first paragraph, they get it wrong:
Why does the Daily News provide anonymity for the source? It's not clear. Moreover, the report does not indicate that the FAA raised any red flags about advising the media. This quote seems to be gratuitous unless it's meant to add to the criticism of Caldera.
Actually details about the flight were considered to be "for official use only." This is simply a caveat -- it's not a classification. There are only three classifications: confidential, secret, and top secret. It wasn't classified.
If they got this wrong -- what else have they gotten wrong -- without the benefit of an official report?
From the first paragraph, they get it wrong:
The White House aide who okayed the $328,835 Air Force One photo-op flight around the Statue of Liberty last week was sacked Friday.Actually, Caldera, according to the official report, was not responsible for authorizing the flight.
Instead, the military office decided to react to media inquiries, not to make a prior announcement, according to the review by Jim Messina, White House deputy chief of staff.There are a couple of things odd with this statement. For starters, the report was prepared for Jim Messina, he did not author the report. Secondly, the deputy director, George Mulligan, did not anticipate any media reaction to the flight which I thought was a newsworthy aspect that went un-reported. That's why they opted to react to media inquiries.
"The FAA warned the military office that the media needed to be advised of the flight," said an administration source. "There were red flags."
Why does the Daily News provide anonymity for the source? It's not clear. Moreover, the report does not indicate that the FAA raised any red flags about advising the media. This quote seems to be gratuitous unless it's meant to add to the criticism of Caldera.
Caldera's office insisted the flyover was a "classified" mission.
Actually details about the flight were considered to be "for official use only." This is simply a caveat -- it's not a classification. There are only three classifications: confidential, secret, and top secret. It wasn't classified.
A prominent Republican official who specializes in damage control said: "This is a message from [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel that you won't be fired for a mistake or a policy disagreement - but you will be fired for embarrassing the President. That's a good, strong message that needed to be sent."Again with the gratuitous anonymous source. Why does the "prominent Republican official" not want to have his or her name disclosed? Moreover, it's untrue. The President turned a blind eye to Tim Geithner, Linda Solis, Ron Kirk, and Kathleen Sebelius who caused the President a fair amount of embarrassment for their tax problems. (We'll leave aside Joe Biden's gaffes for the moment.) Moreover, how does this official know that mistakes or policy disagreements are not a cause for firing?
If they got this wrong -- what else have they gotten wrong -- without the benefit of an official report?
Friday, May 08, 2009
Something Not Quite Right
With the Friday afternoon resignation of Louis Caldera, the White House is hoping that the matter of 'Planegate" will come to a close. Given the compliant state of the White House press corps, its likely that this issue has breathed its last. Although Mr. Caldera is not entirely blameless in this matter, it seems unlikely that he's the only one guilty of bad judgment.
Nonetheless, the critical question as to who initiated this endeavor remains unanswered. Mr. Caldera's office, according to the White House website, "...ensures that White House requirements are met..." In other words, he was paid to execute, not to think.
It seems that someone, with serious juice, requested the flyover. Curiously, according to the official White House report on the matter -- there is no discussion as to who got the ball rolling other than to note that coordination began in March.
If the Air Force is anything like the Army -- which I know a thing or two -- I suspect that several participating elements would have to sign off on the deal. It wasn't the Air Force's role to question the mission -- their function was to execute the mission. Colonel Scott Turner was the go-to guy who oversaw the planning and coordination. He answered to Mr. Caldera's assistant, George Mulligan.
Mulligan, in turn, notified Caldera about the planning of the mission and added that "...WH shouldn't catch any questions about it." (Mulligan, it seems, has a political tin ear.) Caldera claims not to have read it until after the event occurred. Moreover, Caldera claims to have had two email accounts and he reads one more frequently than the other and he had back spasms that compelled him to leave early which prevented him from reading the email.
Even if one accepted this argument at its face, it seems strange that the director and the deputy director failed to formally discuss this matter given the nature of the mission as they all knew it to be atypical. (There was a thirty second discussion that characterized as an "aside.") Moreover, it seems odd that the one who initiated the matter did not check in for a status update.
Mulligan then recommended that Caldera notify Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, or Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff. Mulligan didn't see this as his responsibility and had assumed that the Air Force would handle the public relations.
Caldera didn't have a coherent explanation as to why he failed to notify Gibbs or Messina. In my experience, that suggests two possible reasons. First, he actually brain cramped and failed to pass the word on. Or, secondly, he was covering for someone and took the hit. It should be noted that Caldera did not formally authorize the mission -- his crime was that he failed to pass the word on the mission.
After the event, Caldera opted to take the hit for the team and it seems that his scalp was required to end the debacle.
The report accomplished its purpose -- assigning the blame to Caldera. Yet it still remains uncertain as to who started this matter in the first place.
Nonetheless, the critical question as to who initiated this endeavor remains unanswered. Mr. Caldera's office, according to the White House website, "...ensures that White House requirements are met..." In other words, he was paid to execute, not to think.
It seems that someone, with serious juice, requested the flyover. Curiously, according to the official White House report on the matter -- there is no discussion as to who got the ball rolling other than to note that coordination began in March.
If the Air Force is anything like the Army -- which I know a thing or two -- I suspect that several participating elements would have to sign off on the deal. It wasn't the Air Force's role to question the mission -- their function was to execute the mission. Colonel Scott Turner was the go-to guy who oversaw the planning and coordination. He answered to Mr. Caldera's assistant, George Mulligan.
Mulligan, in turn, notified Caldera about the planning of the mission and added that "...WH shouldn't catch any questions about it." (Mulligan, it seems, has a political tin ear.) Caldera claims not to have read it until after the event occurred. Moreover, Caldera claims to have had two email accounts and he reads one more frequently than the other and he had back spasms that compelled him to leave early which prevented him from reading the email.
Even if one accepted this argument at its face, it seems strange that the director and the deputy director failed to formally discuss this matter given the nature of the mission as they all knew it to be atypical. (There was a thirty second discussion that characterized as an "aside.") Moreover, it seems odd that the one who initiated the matter did not check in for a status update.
Mulligan then recommended that Caldera notify Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, or Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff. Mulligan didn't see this as his responsibility and had assumed that the Air Force would handle the public relations.
Caldera didn't have a coherent explanation as to why he failed to notify Gibbs or Messina. In my experience, that suggests two possible reasons. First, he actually brain cramped and failed to pass the word on. Or, secondly, he was covering for someone and took the hit. It should be noted that Caldera did not formally authorize the mission -- his crime was that he failed to pass the word on the mission.
After the event, Caldera opted to take the hit for the team and it seems that his scalp was required to end the debacle.
The report accomplished its purpose -- assigning the blame to Caldera. Yet it still remains uncertain as to who started this matter in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)