I fear that the next great tragedy for justice in this country will be that I. Scooter Libby will get a reduced sentence or a presidential pardon. In his usual thorough and concise way Bill Moyers has presented a clear eyed look into this matter which can be viewed at pbs.org/moyers/journal. Please take the time to read or view the story. Unfortunately, I'll bet the protest we just heard over Paris Hilton and the two justice systems in this country was louder than we'll hear if Libby gets off easy.
The potential damage could not have been assessed better than by former Virginia Governor, James Gilmore who said,"If the public believes there is one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." It's my belief that more than anything else, this perception is at the root of non law abiding behavior in a society. I still clearly recall the deleterious effect the pardon of Richard Nixon had on this country. I hope I'm not alone on this.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Monday, June 04, 2007
Democrats Round Two
A better Democratic debate this time to be sure. But not because of CNN as they would have you believe. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite on the air, basking in adulation from colleagues just for doing his job. Wolf Blitzer did it, and for me whether or not he did his job is questionable. Take his show of hands approach when questioning on such critical issues as firing missiles at a suspected Osama Bin Laden target or the use of force in Sudan. It was thoughtless at best and perhaps purposefully contrived. To her credit, Senator Clinton refused to take the bait.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)