My letter below was published in the Boston Globe on October 2:
Compare and contrast, well, primarily contrast, President Bush and Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D, Nevada).
President Bush is conducting a global war on terror, a by-product of which was national parliamentary elections in Afghanistan earlier this week (my, based on how under-reported the event was, democracy sure is dull).
President Bush is orchestrating relief aid to the Gulf Coast in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.
President Bush is actively involved in the preparations along the Texas gulf coast for the arrival of Hurricane Rita.
President Bush won concessions earlier this week from North Korea for that country to suspend its nuclear weapons program.
President Bush is currently vetting candidates for the open Associate Justice position on the United States Supreme Court.
With regard to President Bush, I can go on and on.
Sen. Harry Reid, who has help from 99 other Senators is, according to the Boston Globe, encouraging "the President to take his time in picking a replacement (for the Supreme Court), so the Senate can concentrate on Hurricane Katrina relief . . . (Senate minority chief opposes Roberts, September 21, A2). "
Their can be no more startling difference of leadership than this contrast between an involved-in-everything President and a weak Senator that, by his own admission, truly cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
Above, when I wrote, "with regard to President Bush, I can go on and on", I was of course thinking about the President's efforts to save Social Security, to educate children in failing urban schools, to make many of his tax cuts permanent, to add to the 4 million jobs created since May 2003, and to, as Hillary Clinton says, make abortion rare. Where is Harry Reid, or any Democrat, on any of these issues? They're simply AWOL. Or, if they appear, they are obstructionists, capable of only saying, "No, No, No!"
Compare and contrast, well, primarily contrast, President Bush and Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D, Nevada).
President Bush is conducting a global war on terror, a by-product of which was national parliamentary elections in Afghanistan earlier this week (my, based on how under-reported the event was, democracy sure is dull).
President Bush is orchestrating relief aid to the Gulf Coast in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.
President Bush is actively involved in the preparations along the Texas gulf coast for the arrival of Hurricane Rita.
President Bush won concessions earlier this week from North Korea for that country to suspend its nuclear weapons program.
President Bush is currently vetting candidates for the open Associate Justice position on the United States Supreme Court.
With regard to President Bush, I can go on and on.
Sen. Harry Reid, who has help from 99 other Senators is, according to the Boston Globe, encouraging "the President to take his time in picking a replacement (for the Supreme Court), so the Senate can concentrate on Hurricane Katrina relief . . . (Senate minority chief opposes Roberts, September 21, A2). "
Their can be no more startling difference of leadership than this contrast between an involved-in-everything President and a weak Senator that, by his own admission, truly cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
Above, when I wrote, "with regard to President Bush, I can go on and on", I was of course thinking about the President's efforts to save Social Security, to educate children in failing urban schools, to make many of his tax cuts permanent, to add to the 4 million jobs created since May 2003, and to, as Hillary Clinton says, make abortion rare. Where is Harry Reid, or any Democrat, on any of these issues? They're simply AWOL. Or, if they appear, they are obstructionists, capable of only saying, "No, No, No!"
posted by Zack at 9:34 AM
1 Comments:
The problem with you Zackly is that you view every issue as a Republican v. Democrat issue, or a liberal media bias issue. Zackly, you don't examine any issue on the merits, you have no intellectual curiosity, you are a knee jerk ditto-head, why cant you respond to my comment posted earlier (reprinted below for your convenience), is it because you realize your world construct is wrong and that you are just a mindless sheep spewing out what the Bennett's of the world tell you?
Anti-Ditto head said...
Zacklyright is up to it again, being zackly wrong that is, Zackly's ill deserved ego is frightening at how it suppresses any intellectual curiosity and compels him to being a relentless "ditto head;" lets look at the:
Liberal media?
Did you follow the coverage of the anti-war protests this weekend? If you did you had to work at it since it was pretty much non-existent.
The largest anti-war protest in the US since 1968 - that is nearly 40 years - took place this past Saturday. Where was the coverage in the so-called "liberal" mainstream media?" In the Boston Sunday Globe, for instance, there was a story on page A6 with a single impersonal photo of the crowd that was estimated to be somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000. The entire article occupied 83.7 square inches in the paper. On Sunday there was a small gathering of 400 pro-war protesters who were protesting the anti-war protest of the previous day. There are small protests everyday in Washington, so a small gathering of 400 pro-war guys is a "dog bites man story" right? No. In the Monday Boston Globe, on page A2, there was a large story on the pro-war protest that occupied 118.75 square inches, with two photos. One photo was of a mother crying and the other of angry resolute white men standing in front of a huge American flag (this photo was 62 square inches - nearly half the page). So 100,000-250,000 people against "the war" versus 400 people for the war and our "liberal" Boston Globe provides significantly more coverage of the 400 (40% larger, page A2 versus page A6 and two powerful photos versus one impersonal photo)? What gives?
I will tell you what gives. The major media outlets are part of the current power structure along with the Republican and Democratic parties and they wish to maintain the status quo. Thus, they do not wish to relinquish control to the public, and consequently they are complicit in propagating the belief that we are to support our government's right to make decisions that are in direct opposition to the opinion and interests of the people. On a related note you will recall the wild reporting after the Katrina hurricane of rampant looting, rapes and murders - this was front-page stuff. They said it was "anarchy" with the not so subtle emphasis being on the need for authority to control the people from themselves. All members of the power structure propagated this: the media and members of the local, state and federal governments. Well, interestingly, it is now coming out that these rumors were just that - rumors. There are no substantiated reports of rape in the Superdome, no actual murders, and almost no looting. This information was reported in today's Globe on page A12 (I think) - where few will see it long after we have all been frightened by the "powers-that-be" regarding what we would do to ourselves if not for the police, FBI and military to "maintain" order. Admittedly, total anarchy is not an effective form of social order - but there might be a place for concepts that drive toward less authority and more service from our government. The right wing agenda is just the opposite - increased authority and control along with an elimination of service. It is absurd. (My editorial note: anarchy has been the whipping boy of political ideals - yet most people would agree with its base principals - it is just that it threatens those with power so it has to be vilified).
Post a Comment
<< Home