Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The longest-running news anchor on American television is stepping down. He will be missed, simply because he is a cut so far above all the blow-dried nincompoops on network and cable television.
This has been an unusual year, in terms of presidential campaign politics, because (so far) it has run counter to the conventional wisdom. A standard column for any pundit to write every four years is the "Campaign Starting Even Sooner!" article, in which you decry the fact that the presidential race is beginning earlier and earlier each cycle. Not many of those articles have been written this time around.
I don't care how ironic that sounds to some, it's true. Osama Bin Laden declared war on America, waged that war for years (and killed Americans in doing so), then hid for many more years, and was finally hunted down and killed like an animal. Mission accomplished.
"Turn on your television... to any channel."
For reasons which surpasseth all understanding (at least to myself), I was actually up very early this morning, before the dawn as a matter of fact. This was due to a scheduled television appearance which, unfortunately, did not occur (for technical reasons). Since I was up, though, I caught the tail end of the British royal wedding, which (for us Pacific Coast Time folks) happened in the middle of the night. Surprisingly enough, I have a few things to point out about the event.
Most intelligent political analysts' reaction (right, left, and center) to the news that Donald Trump may be considering a run for the presidency could be summed up as some version of: "You have got to be kidding me." Followed quickly by: "This is going to be so much fun!" But the real punchline to this joke of a candidacy was actually on the punditocracy, when Trump's poll numbers took off and soon put him either in the lead or very close to it for the Republican nomination. Republican voters, it seems, aren't following the punditocracy's lead on "The Donald."
President Obama is trying a new concept for America in Libya -- where we open a war, but then almost immediately bow out and turn it over to others to deal with. In Libya's case, this means N.A.T.O., led largely by Britain, France, and Italy. Libya is also another country with a few diplomatic fictions in place. We're not supposed to be on anyone's "side" in Libya, even though it is obvious we are aiding the rebel forces. We're not supposed to be explicitly for "regime change" (because the United Nations didn't approve it), even though we are quite obviously in favor of Ghaddafi leaving as soon as possible. And nobody's supposed to be "arming" the rebels, even though as time goes by it becomes obvious that they're getting their ammunition from somewhere (not to mention uniforms, communications equipment, and other "non-lethal" support).
Since the mainstream media has, quite obviously, abdicated all responsibility for reporting the news in any sort of journalistic fashion, I thought today would be a good day to review the current status of America's wars. Depending on how you count, there are now three (or four) of these wars which have been all but forgotten by the media these days.
But I have to say, just on the scale of speechifyin' alone, Obama seems to be starting his re-election campaign very strongly -- by framing his issues within a basic Democratic narrative which has been missing in action for quite a while. For that reason alone, both of his recent speeches are worth reading.
Something the media largely missed in the midst of multiple budgetary battles this week was the fact that this is what bipartisanship looks like. The media, at least the "serious" ones, residing either inside the Beltway or in lower Manhattan, have long made much sport out of decrying "partisanship" -- at least, when Democrats act like Democrats, at any rate. Politicians are supposed to "work together" in some Utopian dreamland, to "get serious things done." It sounds great in an editorial, and all of that.