There has been a lot of discussion on social networks about the need to replace David Gregory on Meet the Press. What got me interested was when the name Chuck Todd was raised, most liberals I follow went up in arms in anger. Since I watch his show Monday through Friday, I had no problem with it. But after getting lambasted, although I still think Chuck would be fine, I see their point. So let me say what I think is needed at Meet the Press.
Let me start by saying that anyone following Tim Russert would pale in comparison and would probably seen as a failure. What made Tim so good was his probing questions, and not the first one on a subject. His specialty was asking a question, and like a great lawyer, knowing what the answer would be. He then would either try to poke a hole in the statement or show where the person had flip-flopped. David Gregory has never shown the ability to follow up an obvious lie by a GOP and keep digging until it was seen as a lie. For this reason, I think he has to go.
Could Chuck do it? I think so, although he has stated his job is to give the American people both sides of the debate and let the country decide which side they agree with. In other words, host the debate, but don't be an attacking lawyer and try to find the flaws in the debate. That to me won't work either.
For either David or Chuck to be a good moderator, they have to show the flaws and lies of both sides of the debate. If they can't or won't do it, I know one reporter who can: Rachel Maddow. The right may howl, and she would have to learn to go after liberals just as hard as she goes after the GOP. But I have no doubt she would be like a great lawyer going after the other side. Give Rachel a try and see what happens. I can almost guarantee you, it wouldn't be boring.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Should U.S. military be world's 800 pound gorilla?
The debate on how the military should be used in Iraq is one where several sides seem to have a point, yet all of them don't solve the problem, and in some cases make new problems. But the real question being debated is this: How should the military be used now and in the future.
The neo-hawks want the military to be like the 800 pound gorilla in the room, able to reach out and put right any wrongs in the world, stop any anti-USA movement anywhere in the world, and basically enforcing its beliefs on the world. This requires taking actions anywhere in the world, necessitating a large force and large DOD budgets. This group is basically GOP members like Senators Graham and McCain, but may also include Hillary Clinton. Is this really what most Americans want?
There are those on the other side of the spectrum that think it's time to pull back and take care of America first. Although not complete isolationists, this group believes that only a direct attack on America or an attack on something in its national interest, like an attack on an ally like Israel or a NATO nation, would mean military action is required. DOD budgets would go down, but yes, the military would become less powerful world-wide. Proponents of this style of military preparedness would include Senator Rand Paul and some far-left representatives in the House. Is this what most American want?
The third way of thinking of military power is the most middle-of-the-road way, but the one hardest to define. It basically says that the military must be strong enough to defend itself and also strong enough to help friends out when needed, but mustn't unilaterally take actions in areas of the world America isn't directly attacked. This is the nebulous world where some crises can be acted upon, with the help of others, and others can't, especially if countries in the area refuse to act. This is a gray area in many ways, including costs. Proponents for this style of military actions include President Obama. Is this what most Americans want?
It's hard to know what kind of military most Americans want since we've never had this debate. Isn't it time we had that debate?
The neo-hawks want the military to be like the 800 pound gorilla in the room, able to reach out and put right any wrongs in the world, stop any anti-USA movement anywhere in the world, and basically enforcing its beliefs on the world. This requires taking actions anywhere in the world, necessitating a large force and large DOD budgets. This group is basically GOP members like Senators Graham and McCain, but may also include Hillary Clinton. Is this really what most Americans want?
There are those on the other side of the spectrum that think it's time to pull back and take care of America first. Although not complete isolationists, this group believes that only a direct attack on America or an attack on something in its national interest, like an attack on an ally like Israel or a NATO nation, would mean military action is required. DOD budgets would go down, but yes, the military would become less powerful world-wide. Proponents of this style of military preparedness would include Senator Rand Paul and some far-left representatives in the House. Is this what most American want?
The third way of thinking of military power is the most middle-of-the-road way, but the one hardest to define. It basically says that the military must be strong enough to defend itself and also strong enough to help friends out when needed, but mustn't unilaterally take actions in areas of the world America isn't directly attacked. This is the nebulous world where some crises can be acted upon, with the help of others, and others can't, especially if countries in the area refuse to act. This is a gray area in many ways, including costs. Proponents for this style of military actions include President Obama. Is this what most Americans want?
It's hard to know what kind of military most Americans want since we've never had this debate. Isn't it time we had that debate?
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Tea Party finding its limitations in most states.
There is no doubt that in most states, if not all 50 states, the Tea Party has taken the GOP from the moderate Republican Party of last 50 years. Most, if not all, of the elected officials in the GOP have now gone far to the right to ensure the GOP nomination. But tonight's GOP primary in Tennessee was just the latest proof of the limitations of the Tea Party.
In states like Tennessee, Mississippi, and even Kansas, the Tea Party is finding, at least at the state level, their brand of conservative, low taxes, Bible believing governance against women, and anti-immigration tendencies not only aren't acceptable to Democratic and Independent voters, but that many GOP voters don't want that kind of governing. This is why the moderate wing of the GOP, sometimes called the business wing or the establishment wing of the party, has won so many GOP primaries this year.
It's a very bad sign for the GOP/Tea Party that to get the nomination of the party, a state or national nominee has to go so far right that they are unacceptable to a majority of Americans. The Tea Party can continue as they are and stop the country from moving forward through Gerry manned districts and filibusters in the Senate, but that won't last long, with the changing demographics in the country. So unless they change their beliefs, they'll not only never truly govern the country, but will pass through history like the Whig Party: A footnote in history no one 100 years from now will even care about.
In states like Tennessee, Mississippi, and even Kansas, the Tea Party is finding, at least at the state level, their brand of conservative, low taxes, Bible believing governance against women, and anti-immigration tendencies not only aren't acceptable to Democratic and Independent voters, but that many GOP voters don't want that kind of governing. This is why the moderate wing of the GOP, sometimes called the business wing or the establishment wing of the party, has won so many GOP primaries this year.
It's a very bad sign for the GOP/Tea Party that to get the nomination of the party, a state or national nominee has to go so far right that they are unacceptable to a majority of Americans. The Tea Party can continue as they are and stop the country from moving forward through Gerry manned districts and filibusters in the Senate, but that won't last long, with the changing demographics in the country. So unless they change their beliefs, they'll not only never truly govern the country, but will pass through history like the Whig Party: A footnote in history no one 100 years from now will even care about.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
GOP can't get much right, can they?
Having ALS, and the pain and with the trouble I have typing, I haven't wrote much since I got back on the computer. I am very slow, and I make a lot of mistakes. I'll try to blog more, but for now, let me run down a few items that have bothered me.
-- I understand that Israel needs to protect its people, but bombing homes and schools seems more than a little bit over the top. And I'm sorry, GOP, but having sympathy for innocent people in Gaza doesn't mean you're anti-Israel or that you hate the Jews.
-- How bad does it have to be in some Central American counties that 10s of thousands of parents would rather have their children attempt the journey to America, with all the problems, including rapes and death, than keep them at home? It's very sad that most GOP politicians don't care about that they don't care about those children, but sadder yet that 10s of millions of Americans not only don't care about them, but some are scared and some actually hate them.
-- The E-bola virus can't be transmitted by air and has been safely stored in this country for decades. How some in the GOP can frighten people by saying they are at risk of getting the virus because 2 people are getting treated here is pandering to the lowest base emotions of its base is beyond me.
-- After being wrong about everything that happened in Iraq after we invaded (They said it would take less than 6 month, we'd be hailed as liberators, very few if any lives would be lost, and Iraq's oil revenue would pay for it), how can anyone take anyone in the GOP or at Fox News believe what they say about the Obama Administration's foreign policy?
-- Do you really think, House GOP, that signing a bill that deports every child who's illegal but brought here by their parents really going to help you in any election? Are you that deluded?
Well, that's some of my thoughts. I hope you'll give me some of yours.
-- I understand that Israel needs to protect its people, but bombing homes and schools seems more than a little bit over the top. And I'm sorry, GOP, but having sympathy for innocent people in Gaza doesn't mean you're anti-Israel or that you hate the Jews.
-- How bad does it have to be in some Central American counties that 10s of thousands of parents would rather have their children attempt the journey to America, with all the problems, including rapes and death, than keep them at home? It's very sad that most GOP politicians don't care about that they don't care about those children, but sadder yet that 10s of millions of Americans not only don't care about them, but some are scared and some actually hate them.
-- The E-bola virus can't be transmitted by air and has been safely stored in this country for decades. How some in the GOP can frighten people by saying they are at risk of getting the virus because 2 people are getting treated here is pandering to the lowest base emotions of its base is beyond me.
-- After being wrong about everything that happened in Iraq after we invaded (They said it would take less than 6 month, we'd be hailed as liberators, very few if any lives would be lost, and Iraq's oil revenue would pay for it), how can anyone take anyone in the GOP or at Fox News believe what they say about the Obama Administration's foreign policy?
-- Do you really think, House GOP, that signing a bill that deports every child who's illegal but brought here by their parents really going to help you in any election? Are you that deluded?
Well, that's some of my thoughts. I hope you'll give me some of yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)