Ever since Ronald Reagan put together a winning coalition in 1980 of social/religious conservatives, economic conservatives, limited government libertarians, those who believe U.S. defense should be the strongest in the world, and conservative Democrats who are disgruntled with their Party, Republicans have enjoyed the longest era of success they've had in modern times.
It would be redundant for me to enumerate those successes here as I have written often of the resounding success of the Reagan Revolution. Suffice it to say that the Reagan ideology probably saved the Republic from continued decline and eventual destruction.
Yet, all it took to rip this coalition apart was two terms of George W. Bush.
Bush has perhaps pulled off the single biggest hoax in politics since Richard Nixon. He ran twice as a Reagan conservative but has governed as a moderate, elitist Republican in the tradition of his father, George H.W. Bush, and other GOP moderates such as Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford.
During the first Bush term, this fact was hidden by the nation's focus on terrorism and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But during the second term those issues had faded from public consciousness a bit, allowing the light to peer through so as to illuminate the true Bush ideology.
Bush has adhered to the principles of the Reagan Coalition on only two fronts--the tax cuts and abortion. Even when it comes to the War in Iraq, the President has failed to consider the enormous strain his policies have placed on the American military, which was not prepared in terms of overall manpower to conduct two separate fronts in the War on Terror.
Reagan believed that one must first build up the country's military strength in terms of new and effective weapons--and modern gear for the soldiers--and in terms of increasing the number of men and women who serve in the armed forces.
Certainly a President is not always afforded the luxury of having the time to do these things before engaging our military in battle. 9/11 was an event that could not be foreseen in any specific, definite sense. But Bush's failure was not responding to the attack. His mistake is that even after engaging our military we still did not succeed in the necessary strengthening of arms and personnel.
The result is a military that has been drained, used-up, overworked, and under-compensated.
Nonetheless, Bush still presided over a massive increase in the size and scope of government, even as our military suffered. And this is precisely where the President committed what is tantamount to heresy within the Reagan Coalition--a libertarian, small government conservative would not support such a massive buildup of government power and authority.
Add to this the Bush penchant for kicking in the teeth those who put him in office, such as supporting D.C.'s gun ban, allowing the ATF to continue to intimidate, harass, and crush the firearms industry, and failing to stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country and put the clamps on 'sanctuary cities.'
Because of Mr. Bush's willingness to ignore the policies that gave the GOP such enormous success, he has become perhaps the most unpopular President in U.S. history, and he has been dragging down the GOP with him.
For this reason we are stuck with John McCain, who in some ironic twist of fate is probably the one Republican who has the best chance of winning the White House precisely because he has been willing to oppose Bush and his Party on various issues.
Granted, some of McCain's views are certainly anathema to Reagan conservatives, but the public perception is that he is a good guy who thinks for himself. The masses generally do not understand the nuances of policy. All they know is McCain has stood against Bush and other Republicans who are not so popular at present.
The bottom line is that we are stuck with McCain because Bush has nearly destroyed the Reagan Coalition. And if McCain is able to pull in some Democrats with him it won't be because they are 'Reagan Democrats' but because they support some of McCain's more liberal ideas and refuse to support Hillary or Obama because of the ill feelings the Democrats' primary season has evoked.
To be sure, the remnants of the Coalition are still there, although scattered apart in political never-never land. The 'blue dog' Democrats are ample proof of that. All it would take for the Coalition to receive a breath of new life is a candidate who can inspire and rekindle the patriotic spirit that brought us all together in the first place.
Showing posts with label George H.W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George H.W. Bush. Show all posts
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Rehabilitation of Dan Rather
When one watches Dan Rather's news program on HDTV on satellite, one gets the impression that one is witnessing a curious phenomenon involving the rehabilitation of the veteran news man's reputation. Rather is thoughtful, reflective, respectful--a far cry from the tempestuous, volatile, and impulsive Dan Rather to which most Americans became accustomed in his long career at CBS News.
Mr. Rather is actually easy to watch at HDTV. His interviews are in-depth, relaxed, and perceptive, allowing the interviewee to feel at ease and thus, more apt to disclose information without any of the defensiveness one feels when confronted by an aggressive news-hound.
One is apt to wonder about the change. Has Rather grown more mellow with age? Has he finally matured in concert with his age? Or is this a more calculated plan to rehabilitate the reporter's image after the debacle at CBS where it was disclosed that he and his lieutenants had fabricated a story concerning President Bush's service in the National Guard?
Perhaps it is a bit of both, and that's okay.
With age comes wisdom, or at least that is the hope. Perhaps even more wisdom is to be gleaned from making glaring mistakes in one's senior years.
Nonetheless, the change is striking.
Long before Dan Rather became anchor at CBS News following the retirement of icon Walter Cronkite in 1981, he had been the network's chief White House correspondent. During those years many wondered if perhaps Rather's penchant for being in the center of controversy became the news that overshadowed the news.
At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Rather was roughed up by a group of protesters demonstrating on the Convention floor. He even received a gash on the side of his head, which necessitated that he wear a white patch for several weeks thereafter.
Rather never missed a beat, however. He gave a full report on the incident, on live TV, to Cronkite who was up in the booth, and he was back on the front lines the very next day.
When Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey for the Presidency in 1968, Rather could hardly contain his utter disdain for Nixon. The glee with which Rather reported on the President's woes in the aftermath of Watergate was obvious. At one point, during a Presidential news conference, Rather arose to ask a question, to which the crowd of reporters responded with applause and cheers.
Who was it that said reporters weren't biased and partisan?
The President, seeking to break the tension with some humor, responded by quipping, 'Dan, are you running for something?'
Rather responded with an acerbic, 'No, Mr. President, are you?'
Years later, after assuming the role as anchor, Rather ambushed Vice-President George H.W. Bush, who was campaigning for President in 1988. The deal was that Bush would answer no questions about Iran-Contra. Rather proceeded to ask a question about Iran-Contra anyway, which sent Bush erupting into a 3-minute tirade.
Rather never got in a word edge-wise.
Many observers believed that Bush won the Presidency precisely because of the Dan Rather interview. He had taken on the unabashed liberal anchorman and won.
And then of course there was the incident where Rather walked off the set of the CBS Evening News one night, in protest of the decision by the network to delay the news broadcast due to a sporting event. The action left CBS with a blank screen for several minutes until producers decided what they were going to do.
The one thing we all came to expect from Dan Rather was the unexpected--and the volatile.
But the fabricated story on George W. Bush's military service was the last straw. When the news came to light that the whole thing was made up, with very little evidence to lend the allegations any credibility, CBS deftly eased Rather out the door in conjunction with the announcement of his upcoming retirement.
The thing is, Rather never retired.
Thus, we now are witnessing an aging news man in the sunset of his professional life taking a 180-degree about face. Perhaps Rather wishes to be remembered by some things other than his less-than-admirable decisions earlier in his career.
After all, he even appeared 2 weeks ago on Fox News on Neil Cavuto's afternoon broadcast. For a liberal, mainstream media icon to appear on Fox, on one of the most overtly conservative programs on Fox, is ample proof that something is happening.
Either Rather has lost his mind, or he really has gained some wisdom with age.
Mr. Rather is actually easy to watch at HDTV. His interviews are in-depth, relaxed, and perceptive, allowing the interviewee to feel at ease and thus, more apt to disclose information without any of the defensiveness one feels when confronted by an aggressive news-hound.
One is apt to wonder about the change. Has Rather grown more mellow with age? Has he finally matured in concert with his age? Or is this a more calculated plan to rehabilitate the reporter's image after the debacle at CBS where it was disclosed that he and his lieutenants had fabricated a story concerning President Bush's service in the National Guard?
Perhaps it is a bit of both, and that's okay.
With age comes wisdom, or at least that is the hope. Perhaps even more wisdom is to be gleaned from making glaring mistakes in one's senior years.
Nonetheless, the change is striking.
Long before Dan Rather became anchor at CBS News following the retirement of icon Walter Cronkite in 1981, he had been the network's chief White House correspondent. During those years many wondered if perhaps Rather's penchant for being in the center of controversy became the news that overshadowed the news.
At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Rather was roughed up by a group of protesters demonstrating on the Convention floor. He even received a gash on the side of his head, which necessitated that he wear a white patch for several weeks thereafter.
Rather never missed a beat, however. He gave a full report on the incident, on live TV, to Cronkite who was up in the booth, and he was back on the front lines the very next day.
When Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey for the Presidency in 1968, Rather could hardly contain his utter disdain for Nixon. The glee with which Rather reported on the President's woes in the aftermath of Watergate was obvious. At one point, during a Presidential news conference, Rather arose to ask a question, to which the crowd of reporters responded with applause and cheers.
Who was it that said reporters weren't biased and partisan?
The President, seeking to break the tension with some humor, responded by quipping, 'Dan, are you running for something?'
Rather responded with an acerbic, 'No, Mr. President, are you?'
Years later, after assuming the role as anchor, Rather ambushed Vice-President George H.W. Bush, who was campaigning for President in 1988. The deal was that Bush would answer no questions about Iran-Contra. Rather proceeded to ask a question about Iran-Contra anyway, which sent Bush erupting into a 3-minute tirade.
Rather never got in a word edge-wise.
Many observers believed that Bush won the Presidency precisely because of the Dan Rather interview. He had taken on the unabashed liberal anchorman and won.
And then of course there was the incident where Rather walked off the set of the CBS Evening News one night, in protest of the decision by the network to delay the news broadcast due to a sporting event. The action left CBS with a blank screen for several minutes until producers decided what they were going to do.
The one thing we all came to expect from Dan Rather was the unexpected--and the volatile.
But the fabricated story on George W. Bush's military service was the last straw. When the news came to light that the whole thing was made up, with very little evidence to lend the allegations any credibility, CBS deftly eased Rather out the door in conjunction with the announcement of his upcoming retirement.
The thing is, Rather never retired.
Thus, we now are witnessing an aging news man in the sunset of his professional life taking a 180-degree about face. Perhaps Rather wishes to be remembered by some things other than his less-than-admirable decisions earlier in his career.
After all, he even appeared 2 weeks ago on Fox News on Neil Cavuto's afternoon broadcast. For a liberal, mainstream media icon to appear on Fox, on one of the most overtly conservative programs on Fox, is ample proof that something is happening.
Either Rather has lost his mind, or he really has gained some wisdom with age.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Cauldron Still Boils Under Chinese Surface
Very little has changed in China with regard to free speech and political dissent since the 1989 Tienanmen Square Massacre. Last week a political dissident by the name of Chen Shuqing was sentenced to four years in jail after being convicted in a Chinese court for 'inciting subversion.'
Chen had written extensively on many foreign websites about the need for freedom and constitutional rule in China.
China has a constitution that supposedly grants the freedom of expressing political opinion, though it rarely, if ever, upholds such liberty.
For example, in order for Google, Inc. to do business in the Communist nation, it had to agree to censor its search engine results within the country, deleting all references to the Tienanmen Square Massacre and to Taiwan's independence.
Google's highly unethical, un-American, and anti-Constitutional practices in China remains a thorn in the flesh to those of us who use the corporation's services. We happen to question whether such policies should be legal for an American corporation.
Although China had agreed to ease some of its restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics, human and media watch groups say that the country is cracking down on political dissent and the growing social unrest within its borders.
A Paris-based liberty watchdog group called 'Reporters Without Borders' says that 30 journalists and 50 Internet users have been arrested and detained in China, some remaining behind bars for nearly 20 years.
The group also ranks China a dismal 163rd out of 167 countries on its press freedom index.
Reporters Without Borders condemned the harsh sentence of Chen, referring to the actions of the Chinese government as 'appalling.' Even the lawyer representing Chen, Li Jianqiang, had his license to practice law suspended for a year due to his defense of cases involving freedom of the press.
The U.S. squandered a golden opportunity to use the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency to defend the student dissidents who were summarily slaughtered, imprisoned, and oppressed by their own government during the 1989 Tienanmen Square incident.
Chinese university students by the tens of thousands took to the streets in 1989 to demand liberty. One cannot forget the one male student facing down a Chinese military tank with its huge guns pointed at him.
The standoff did not last long.
After attempting in vain to silence the protesters with fear tactics, the Chinese government lowered the boom on its own citizens, most of whom were the brightest young intellects in the country. Using its mighty military arsenal against unarmed dissidents, China crushed the pro-liberty demonstrations with massive bloodshed.
President George H.W. Bush maintained a low profile in the wake of such a tragedy.
Many believe that Bush the First placed expediency above principle when he refused to come to the defense of the student dissidents. After all, Bush had established close friends within the Chinese government early in his career as a foreign diplomat.
One cannot even begin to fathom Ronald Reagan doing such a thing had he been President. In fact, it is a near certainty that had Reagan still been in office a very different scenario would have developed, possibly leading to a human rights showdown with the Communist country, much as he had done with the Soviet Union.
With Bush the First's capitulation to the Chinese government, the student dissidents were essentially left hanging out to dry all on their own.
Bill Clinton was no better than Bush the First. In fact, one of the driving forces of the Tienanmen Square uprising, Chai Ling, was appalled that President Bill Clinton went to China in 1999 and saluted some of the very same soldiers who killed many of her friends during the 1989 protest.
The thing that oppressive governments never learn is that the thirst for liberty never dissipates but only grows the more a society is oppressed. And since 1989 the student movement that burst forth demanding liberty has been publicly silenced but not destroyed.
In fact, the cauldron of unrest still boils just under the Chinese surface, and the Chinese government knows it.
This is the reason that despite their reassurances, the government still cracks down harshly on all political dissent.
And for this reason, American corporations such as Google are complicit in the Chinese oppression of its people. It almost goes without saying that Google and others like it deserve to be harshly condemned.
For a complete annotated pictorial of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, click here:
http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm
Chen had written extensively on many foreign websites about the need for freedom and constitutional rule in China.
China has a constitution that supposedly grants the freedom of expressing political opinion, though it rarely, if ever, upholds such liberty.
For example, in order for Google, Inc. to do business in the Communist nation, it had to agree to censor its search engine results within the country, deleting all references to the Tienanmen Square Massacre and to Taiwan's independence.
Google's highly unethical, un-American, and anti-Constitutional practices in China remains a thorn in the flesh to those of us who use the corporation's services. We happen to question whether such policies should be legal for an American corporation.
Although China had agreed to ease some of its restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics, human and media watch groups say that the country is cracking down on political dissent and the growing social unrest within its borders.
A Paris-based liberty watchdog group called 'Reporters Without Borders' says that 30 journalists and 50 Internet users have been arrested and detained in China, some remaining behind bars for nearly 20 years.
The group also ranks China a dismal 163rd out of 167 countries on its press freedom index.
Reporters Without Borders condemned the harsh sentence of Chen, referring to the actions of the Chinese government as 'appalling.' Even the lawyer representing Chen, Li Jianqiang, had his license to practice law suspended for a year due to his defense of cases involving freedom of the press.
The U.S. squandered a golden opportunity to use the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency to defend the student dissidents who were summarily slaughtered, imprisoned, and oppressed by their own government during the 1989 Tienanmen Square incident.
Chinese university students by the tens of thousands took to the streets in 1989 to demand liberty. One cannot forget the one male student facing down a Chinese military tank with its huge guns pointed at him.
The standoff did not last long.
After attempting in vain to silence the protesters with fear tactics, the Chinese government lowered the boom on its own citizens, most of whom were the brightest young intellects in the country. Using its mighty military arsenal against unarmed dissidents, China crushed the pro-liberty demonstrations with massive bloodshed.
President George H.W. Bush maintained a low profile in the wake of such a tragedy.
Many believe that Bush the First placed expediency above principle when he refused to come to the defense of the student dissidents. After all, Bush had established close friends within the Chinese government early in his career as a foreign diplomat.
One cannot even begin to fathom Ronald Reagan doing such a thing had he been President. In fact, it is a near certainty that had Reagan still been in office a very different scenario would have developed, possibly leading to a human rights showdown with the Communist country, much as he had done with the Soviet Union.
With Bush the First's capitulation to the Chinese government, the student dissidents were essentially left hanging out to dry all on their own.
Bill Clinton was no better than Bush the First. In fact, one of the driving forces of the Tienanmen Square uprising, Chai Ling, was appalled that President Bill Clinton went to China in 1999 and saluted some of the very same soldiers who killed many of her friends during the 1989 protest.
The thing that oppressive governments never learn is that the thirst for liberty never dissipates but only grows the more a society is oppressed. And since 1989 the student movement that burst forth demanding liberty has been publicly silenced but not destroyed.
In fact, the cauldron of unrest still boils just under the Chinese surface, and the Chinese government knows it.
This is the reason that despite their reassurances, the government still cracks down harshly on all political dissent.
And for this reason, American corporations such as Google are complicit in the Chinese oppression of its people. It almost goes without saying that Google and others like it deserve to be harshly condemned.
For a complete annotated pictorial of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, click here:
http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)