01
Feb
2005
I happened to watch Monday's briefing with the White House press corps and Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan. The focus was on the Iraqi vote that took place over the weekend.
At first, McClellan's responses to what, for the most part, were innocuous, typical questions appeared positive, even uplifting, rooted in the spirit of freedom and democracy. Reporters asked questions such as "Does the president consider the vote a success?" and "What pressure will the White House bring to influence selections for executive positions by the newly elected democratic regime?" (This second question's phrasing is contradictory.)
More than 60 percent of the eligible population turned out to vote in Iraq, which by any standard was a monumental success, even more impressive considering the risk and terrible shroud of fear that understandably permeated the process. (Imagine if Americans took voting as seriously.)
McClellan's message was basically to allow for the Iraqi people to implement a democratic regime based upon their own choices and cultural needs, which sounded noble for the first 10 minutes, then became so completely redundant regardless of the questions asked that the message began to morph into a disturbingly hollow mantra.
But what bothered me more was the vacuous nature of most the questions by the press corps, and its collective willingness to let the more relevant questions go unadressed, even ignored, by McClellan.
For example, one journalist asked how the president could support democracy in Iraq, but not in the District of Columbia? (Recall that D.C. does not have congressional representation because it is not a state.) The reporter tried to stand her ground, while McClellan stiffly responded by saying that the "views of the president on this subject are well known and there is nothing to add." Well, I do not know the president's view on this matter and would have liked an explanation. But before she could press further, McClellan motioned for a new question from another reporter, who obediently changed the subject completely with more of the trite, soundbite-ish queries that prevailed throughout the briefing.
I would equate the large group of journalists who make up this country's White House press corps to a room full of neutered cats - ineffectual, inadequate to the job, and shooting nothing but blanks. It is no wonder that Americans are ill-informed about the realities of this current administration's overarching agenda(s).
Debate a Lost Art
America is facing a paradigm shift in politics that could pose a serious threat to our own democracy. The move to put the issue of God in the middle of politics has a real bullet. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, because history shows the devastation that can be wrought by religious differences.
The problem is that most such issues never see the platform of debate. They come out of the gate as divisive and pit us against each other from the beginning. Debate over issues is a lost art in this country. The pundits are perfect examples, including shows like Crossfire and Hanity & Colmes. They simply bark their views at one another rather than choosing a topic and discussing it using rules of civil engagement that demand each point be respectfully addressed as fully as possible by both sides, staying on point to some conclusion.
Political drama is perpetuated by liberal-versus-conservative mudslinging. This wouldn't be so bad if some semblance of truth were behind it. But it rarely is. I blame the loss of identity currently being experienced by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Most members haven't a clue about origins, their respective political missions, or their relevance on an individual basis. Think about it. Why are you a Democrat or Republican?
Republicans allowed their identities to be usurped by big-business interests' influence in government. In truth, small business more accurately reflects Republican values as they relate to both political and economical preferences. Republicans traditionally are associated with strong support of "individual" rights. Unfortunately, they have allowed liberalism to denigrate this advocacy as somehow adverse to "collective" rights. In other words, the good of the one outweighs the good of the whole. This is nonsense and illogical.
But Republicans further this disconnect by allowing big business to contaminate the competitive process with undue influence in governmental policy/legislation and doing nothing to stop it. Democrats are equally culpable in this, but they have traditionally disavowed such participation under the guise of social-entitlement spending, which makes liberalism appear more compassionate and responsive to the people. This is also nonsense and illogical. Government spending will always translate to some ratio of taxation of American income, which, depending how cumbersome, debilitates us.
Democrats huff and puff but have lost their convictions by first failing for so long to govern reasonably with regard to spending, then commingling with neo-conservatism to stay politically relevant, finally being absorbed by the hypocrisy of their own making.
The neo-conservatism that defines Republicans today is a departure from Republican values, and from the original mission and party identity that made it a noble and distinctive political aspiration. Neo-conservatism has replaced advocacy of the individual with advocacy of wealth, causing government spending to be of little or no consequence. The economic model of capitalism is corrupted as a result, which in turn threatens democracy as we know it. Capitalism is a fundamental requirement to democracy and individual freedom as defined in our Constitution. No other economic model works so well in tandem with democratic principles.
Davenport's Civic Treason?
This week should unveil the City of Davenport's hired gun, an ex-gaming consultant from Des Moines who was hired by City Administrator Craig Malin to do the Isle of Capri's work for it and re-draft a proposal for a new hotel on downtown Davenport's riverfront. It has been suggested that the city's re-draft will more adequately reflect a better deal for the city. But how can this be true when we have a city administration that is clearly lacking in the fundamentals of business and economics? Otherwise it would know that we don't draft deals for businesses and then expect to have a leveraged position in negotiations.
And once again, public consensus for no hotel on our downtown riverfront is deliberately ignored by the very stewards entrusted with protecting, preserving, and responsibly as well as responsively serving Davenport's citizens.
The alarming process here is that this re-draft will likely be presented to the Isle of Capri before the council has a chance to adequately consider it, but more importantly before the public has a chance to review it at all.
This re-draft by the City is such an ill-conceived strategy that it borders on civic treason.
More than 60 percent of the eligible population turned out to vote in Iraq, which by any standard was a monumental success, even more impressive considering the risk and terrible shroud of fear that understandably permeated the process. (Imagine if Americans took voting as seriously.)
McClellan's message was basically to allow for the Iraqi people to implement a democratic regime based upon their own choices and cultural needs, which sounded noble for the first 10 minutes, then became so completely redundant regardless of the questions asked that the message began to morph into a disturbingly hollow mantra.
But what bothered me more was the vacuous nature of most the questions by the press corps, and its collective willingness to let the more relevant questions go unadressed, even ignored, by McClellan.
For example, one journalist asked how the president could support democracy in Iraq, but not in the District of Columbia? (Recall that D.C. does not have congressional representation because it is not a state.) The reporter tried to stand her ground, while McClellan stiffly responded by saying that the "views of the president on this subject are well known and there is nothing to add." Well, I do not know the president's view on this matter and would have liked an explanation. But before she could press further, McClellan motioned for a new question from another reporter, who obediently changed the subject completely with more of the trite, soundbite-ish queries that prevailed throughout the briefing.
I would equate the large group of journalists who make up this country's White House press corps to a room full of neutered cats - ineffectual, inadequate to the job, and shooting nothing but blanks. It is no wonder that Americans are ill-informed about the realities of this current administration's overarching agenda(s).
Debate a Lost Art
America is facing a paradigm shift in politics that could pose a serious threat to our own democracy. The move to put the issue of God in the middle of politics has a real bullet. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, because history shows the devastation that can be wrought by religious differences.
The problem is that most such issues never see the platform of debate. They come out of the gate as divisive and pit us against each other from the beginning. Debate over issues is a lost art in this country. The pundits are perfect examples, including shows like Crossfire and Hanity & Colmes. They simply bark their views at one another rather than choosing a topic and discussing it using rules of civil engagement that demand each point be respectfully addressed as fully as possible by both sides, staying on point to some conclusion.
Political drama is perpetuated by liberal-versus-conservative mudslinging. This wouldn't be so bad if some semblance of truth were behind it. But it rarely is. I blame the loss of identity currently being experienced by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Most members haven't a clue about origins, their respective political missions, or their relevance on an individual basis. Think about it. Why are you a Democrat or Republican?
Republicans allowed their identities to be usurped by big-business interests' influence in government. In truth, small business more accurately reflects Republican values as they relate to both political and economical preferences. Republicans traditionally are associated with strong support of "individual" rights. Unfortunately, they have allowed liberalism to denigrate this advocacy as somehow adverse to "collective" rights. In other words, the good of the one outweighs the good of the whole. This is nonsense and illogical.
But Republicans further this disconnect by allowing big business to contaminate the competitive process with undue influence in governmental policy/legislation and doing nothing to stop it. Democrats are equally culpable in this, but they have traditionally disavowed such participation under the guise of social-entitlement spending, which makes liberalism appear more compassionate and responsive to the people. This is also nonsense and illogical. Government spending will always translate to some ratio of taxation of American income, which, depending how cumbersome, debilitates us.
Democrats huff and puff but have lost their convictions by first failing for so long to govern reasonably with regard to spending, then commingling with neo-conservatism to stay politically relevant, finally being absorbed by the hypocrisy of their own making.
The neo-conservatism that defines Republicans today is a departure from Republican values, and from the original mission and party identity that made it a noble and distinctive political aspiration. Neo-conservatism has replaced advocacy of the individual with advocacy of wealth, causing government spending to be of little or no consequence. The economic model of capitalism is corrupted as a result, which in turn threatens democracy as we know it. Capitalism is a fundamental requirement to democracy and individual freedom as defined in our Constitution. No other economic model works so well in tandem with democratic principles.
Davenport's Civic Treason?
This week should unveil the City of Davenport's hired gun, an ex-gaming consultant from Des Moines who was hired by City Administrator Craig Malin to do the Isle of Capri's work for it and re-draft a proposal for a new hotel on downtown Davenport's riverfront. It has been suggested that the city's re-draft will more adequately reflect a better deal for the city. But how can this be true when we have a city administration that is clearly lacking in the fundamentals of business and economics? Otherwise it would know that we don't draft deals for businesses and then expect to have a leveraged position in negotiations.
And once again, public consensus for no hotel on our downtown riverfront is deliberately ignored by the very stewards entrusted with protecting, preserving, and responsibly as well as responsively serving Davenport's citizens.
The alarming process here is that this re-draft will likely be presented to the Isle of Capri before the council has a chance to adequately consider it, but more importantly before the public has a chance to review it at all.
This re-draft by the City is such an ill-conceived strategy that it borders on civic treason.
