Bush to Fire Communications team!
Before you get to my letter to the Boston Globe from over the weekend, I just need to vent to my readers that I'm disappointed by so few comments on my recent race relations posts. I quoted the writer of the driving article as saying folks are reluctant to talk about race. But how do we solve the problem if we don't?
For more than 4 years now I've thought the Bush Administration has done a poor job of getting its message out; a letter on the subject I banged out Saturday:
Editor,
By just examining the stories in one issue (all references are to the August 12 issue) of the Boston Globe, it is clear the liberal extremists are doing a better job getting out their message of division than President Bush is doing in getting out his message that we are fighting a global war against terrorists.
In “9/11 ties suspected in plot; More than 70 held as al Qaeda link probed (A1), we learn of the extraordinary cooperation among the US, British, Pakistani and Italian intelligence agencies that foiled the plot to blow up as many as 10 airliners heading from London to the United States.
In “Lebanon cease-fire resolution is passed (A1), we learn of the extraordinary efforts by Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice in brokering a cease-fire resolution between Israel and Hezbollah.
In “Blast kills Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, US leads raid on Al Qaeda suspects (A2), we learn that “US-led forces killed three suspected al Qaeda fighters and arrested three more in a raid.”
In “Clerics issue call for peace (A2), we learn that both Sunni and Shi’ite Imams are calling for an end to the sectarian violence that is threatening the fragile new democracy in Iraq at the same time “US and Iraqi soldiers have stepped up raids in Baghdad and other cities to shut down militias and death squads.”
And, though the Boston Globe could not find a syndicated story to publish on the matters, I'm quite sure the Bush Administration continues to work earnestly on the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
Yet, in “Bush opposition growing, poll finds (A9)”, we learn that President Bush’s approval rating, according to an Associated Press – Ipsos poll, has dropped to 33 percent.
And, in “A convenient threat (op-ed, A17)”, liberal columnist, Mr. Robert Kuttner, by extension, idiotically argues that the first four items cited above are not parts of the same war (Mr. Kuttner having taken his eyes off the Iran and North Korea threats did not address either)!
I, of course, do not blame the liberal media for getting their divisive message out; they obviously think division helps their political agenda. I’m profoundly disappointed the President and his communications team have not made a better case for his policies to the American people. We are approaching five years without any terrorist attacks on American soil; certainly an awful lot of dedicated people, hired by the President, must be doing something right. (End of letter.)
Before you get to my letter to the Boston Globe from over the weekend, I just need to vent to my readers that I'm disappointed by so few comments on my recent race relations posts. I quoted the writer of the driving article as saying folks are reluctant to talk about race. But how do we solve the problem if we don't?
For more than 4 years now I've thought the Bush Administration has done a poor job of getting its message out; a letter on the subject I banged out Saturday:
Editor,
By just examining the stories in one issue (all references are to the August 12 issue) of the Boston Globe, it is clear the liberal extremists are doing a better job getting out their message of division than President Bush is doing in getting out his message that we are fighting a global war against terrorists.
In “9/11 ties suspected in plot; More than 70 held as al Qaeda link probed (A1), we learn of the extraordinary cooperation among the US, British, Pakistani and Italian intelligence agencies that foiled the plot to blow up as many as 10 airliners heading from London to the United States.
In “Lebanon cease-fire resolution is passed (A1), we learn of the extraordinary efforts by Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice in brokering a cease-fire resolution between Israel and Hezbollah.
In “Blast kills Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, US leads raid on Al Qaeda suspects (A2), we learn that “US-led forces killed three suspected al Qaeda fighters and arrested three more in a raid.”
In “Clerics issue call for peace (A2), we learn that both Sunni and Shi’ite Imams are calling for an end to the sectarian violence that is threatening the fragile new democracy in Iraq at the same time “US and Iraqi soldiers have stepped up raids in Baghdad and other cities to shut down militias and death squads.”
And, though the Boston Globe could not find a syndicated story to publish on the matters, I'm quite sure the Bush Administration continues to work earnestly on the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
Yet, in “Bush opposition growing, poll finds (A9)”, we learn that President Bush’s approval rating, according to an Associated Press – Ipsos poll, has dropped to 33 percent.
And, in “A convenient threat (op-ed, A17)”, liberal columnist, Mr. Robert Kuttner, by extension, idiotically argues that the first four items cited above are not parts of the same war (Mr. Kuttner having taken his eyes off the Iran and North Korea threats did not address either)!
I, of course, do not blame the liberal media for getting their divisive message out; they obviously think division helps their political agenda. I’m profoundly disappointed the President and his communications team have not made a better case for his policies to the American people. We are approaching five years without any terrorist attacks on American soil; certainly an awful lot of dedicated people, hired by the President, must be doing something right. (End of letter.)
posted by Zack at 7:56 AM
2 Comments:
race relations posts were excellent- not much to add to your comments except that I agree.
I posted a belated comment re Race Relations II, before seeing ZacklyRight's needy cry in this post for comments re his Race Relations posts. In case my comment might get lost because it relates to an old post, and in response to ZacklyRight's cry, here's a cut and paste of my comment:
Let me start by saying that I recently read Taylor Branch's three volume biography of Martin Luther King/history of the Civil Rights movement through the 60's (which is a bit too heavy on details, but overall very good), and I must say that I have a new found appreciation for the struggles that African-Americans had to go through to preserve the basic rights that they should have had all along. Some parts of the story are truly astounding and eye-opening.
I agree with your posting on Race-Relations III that it is far too simplistic and just plain wrong to say that there are ___% _____-Americans, so there should be ___% of _____-Americans in Congress.
I disagree, however, with your assertion here that "the entire thesis of the article assumes that ALL African-Americans are Democrats." The thesis of the article is whether Democrats and minority representatives that have pushed for and succeeded in getting re-districting that creates heavily minority districts have shot themselves in the foot, so that they should re-think their strategy. This doesn't assume that ALL African-Americans are Democrats, but rather recognizes the historical fact that the vast majority of them are. I agree that purposefully re-districting along racial lines is inherently racist, and am generally opposed to the widespread practice of both parties to re-district in ways to gain political advantage (but can't ever see the practice disappearing).
Although believing that purposefully re-districting along racial is inherently racist and therefore problematic, I struggle with the counter-vailing fact of how difficult the fight has been for African-Americans to achieve a meaningful right to vote and the many ways in which voting practices historically have been rigged against them. So, to what extent should we allow re-districting along racial lines to counteract history? I don't know the answer, and struggle with it.
In the end, I don't think there's anything exceptional about the article you cite -- it's merely politics as usual.
Post a Comment
<< Home