"The Presidency and the Press" by Reid Cherlin...

Former White House spokesman and staffer Reid Cherlin pens an excellent article looking at the relationship between the Obama White House and the Press. The essay examines how each entity tries to work with the other, despite fairly recent obstacles that both must find a way to navigate.

An excerpt:

Amid the barrage of criticism, as Obama strains to respond to every new crisis, the White House's moves begin to look like guesses, or even shrugs. "When you don't know what you can plan for," Gibbs says, "then you're watching and reacting. And in this town, if you're just watching and reacting, it never ends well."

Beltway wags have long wondered how it is that Obama, such a gifted communicator, can't manage to tell the story of his own accomplishments. As an insider, that criticism always annoyed me, because it conveniently ignores the realities of how things have changed. As an outsider now, I see the point. If someone this talented and this appealing can't succeed in forging consensus – or even settle on a consistent narrative about what he's done – then what hope is there for the next president? We suddenly find ourselves living in a post-narrative world, and our politics, somehow, are going to have to adapt.

The White House isn't panicking. They know that in spite of everything, they have managed over six years to accomplish much of what Obama promised to do, even if accomplishing it helped speed the process of partisan breakdown. "Everything that you're saying about communications is not actually about communications per se as it is about the polarized nature of the country," the White House adviser says. "There's no clean shot" for communicating the president's message. "That's just where the country's going. And it's going to be worse for the next president," he adds, "hands down."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-presidency-and-the-press-20140804#ixzz39YjZCSW9 

Sean Hannity: Blood on his hands?

 Fox news and conservative talk radio giant Sean Hannity is taken to task by The Week's Elizabeth Stoker, who finds Hannity's uncomfortable defense of "stand your ground" shooters like George Zimmerman, Byron Smith, etc. ironic when juxtaposed with his views of the sanctity of life i.e. his views on abortion.

The victims in the Zimmerman, Smith shootings as well as the Markus Kaarma case in Montana where its been learned a 17 year old boy had essentially been lured toward Kaarma's garage with a purse left in plain sight in the rear of the of the open garage, according to his girlfriend, in statements to police.

Read her article here: Sean Hannity's Culture of Death...

Is Stoker treating Hannity fairly? I've written about Hannity before here, here, here and here. Its no secret I think he's a highly skilled money-machine in his industry, with scant evidence of anything approaching a soul.

Please read the Stoker article and weigh in...

Sources:

http://theweek.com/article/index/261184/sean-hannitys-culture-of-death

http://www.examiner.com/article/sean-hannity-defends-george-zimmerman-s-inconsistencies-with-a-bad-memory

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/01/hannity-defends-vigilante-killer/199112

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27243115

JFK's "President And The Press" Speech...How Would It Play Now?

This Friday marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. There is plenty of coverage across many media platforms of late to mark the occasion. I'll leave it to my readers to seek out their preferred source for this content.

This morning, I gave attention to a speech President Kennedy gave on April 27th, 1961 at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City to a meeting of the American Newspaper Publishers Association. The gist of the speech focuses on what President Kennedy felt the role of the press was in terms of covering his Administration. He had taken the oath of office on January 20th, 1961, so had served a fairly short time. To my knowledge, these remarks were his first extended comments directed toward the press.

Its an interesting speech Kennedy titled "President And The Press." Throughout the speech, care is taken to praise as highly important, valuable and necessary, the role of the press in our Country.

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed—and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment—the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution—not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"—but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

Kennedy continues:

"No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed."

It is quite obviously a dramatically different time that the press operates in today. Exponential growth of its industry as a result of the internet, which has resulted in an explosion of "information" websites, blogs and bloggers, as well as the expansion of our television viewing options brings us to a place never before visited by the American people. Intuitively, most agree that more and better access to information is both important and desirable. Are there limits? Can the press be compared to an automobile? Speed is good but isn't there a degree where too much acceleration poses more of a threat than a benefit? Of course. Society has decided that for the vast majority of our roads and highways there will be a limit to be observed and penalties applied if a motorist elects not to.

Similarly, today's "news" media doesn't deliver "just news" (pun intended.) An intoxicating blur between information and entertainment aka "infotainment" I say has done far more harm than good. Too many viewers see no distinction between the two forms and are worse off for it. To confuse Glen Beck with Chris Wallace, to confuse Ed Schultz with Andrea Mitchell, to confuse Sean Hannity with Ed Henry, etc. has its price. While television, radio, the web are mostly revenue seeking and revenue driven enterprises, the audiences tuning in/clicking on their favorites too often seem not to be aware of the difference or perhaps not to care. Either way, its a sad state we find ourselves in. 

Kennedy asks his audience the basic question of is additional restraint to be expected from our media when it comes to matters of national security? He does not answer his question, rather leaving it to his listeners to consider it and do as their conscience guides them. A conscience that Kennedy seems to have a confidence in producing the right decision. (Boldface mine.)

"That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said—and your newspapers have constantly said—that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all."

I wonder aloud today, how such a speech would be received today? I suspect not very well. A percentage of media outlets would find it to be quite acceptable, while others would find it offensive and set out with its consumers a mission of objecting to a President of the United States attempting to, albeit with clever words, censor the Fourth Estate. 

I am reminded of a famous quote by one of our earliest journalistic heroes, Edward R. Murrow. Allowing myself some light editing, I suggest his words address my primary concern rather well: (Boldface mine.)

We will should not walk in fear, one of another. We will should not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin the media have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." 

Click here for the full text of President Kennedy's speech...

(H/T to Tim Farley/POTUS Sirius/XM Channel 124)

Sources: 

http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3677

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow

For You History & Journalism Buffs, Check This Out!!!

Today's edition of the New York Times has a real treat for history buffs. As the global edition of the Times, previously known as The International Herald Tribune becomes the International New York Times, they've included a retrospective of various front pages dating back to the inaugural edition of the New York Herald back in 1887.

Their timeline includes various editions featuring many well-known stories of the day. Clicking on the various small circles along their timeline, you can see how the paper covered the Jack the Ripper case in London in 1889, the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, the tragedy of the Titanic sinking in 1912, the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand which was integral to the start of the first world war in 1914, the abdication of the Czar of Russia in 1914 as well as King Edward in 1936, the Lindberg flight in 1927, the Hindenberg explosion in 1937, Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, the first spaceflights from Yuri Gugerin and John Glenn in 1961 and 1962, the death of Martin Luther King in 1968, Nixon's resignation in 1974, the shootings of the Pope Paul and Indiri Ghandi and the freeing of Nelson Mandela.

That's just a sampling of the featured editions. Each can be clicked on to enlarge the print and explore the entire edition. The walk through history is highly entertaining, to say the least.

Enjoy!

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/14/business/media/turning-the-page.html

How ESPN/ABC News Won the Services of Nate Silver...

 Sunday's Politico Playbook has a interesting write-up on how ESPN/ABC News lured stat whiz Nate Silver to their team, over his former partner, The New York Times. Is this a big deal? Probably. The Times badly wanted Silver to remain on board and was willing to increase their commitment to his work substantially. ESPN, however, also has deep pockets and in the end, Silver decided he liked the offer from the sports network/ABC News combination more than he did from the Times.

 Politico's Mike Allen lays it out...

BEHIND THE CURTAIN - COURTING NATE SILVER : The battle for data whiz Nate Silver, fought secretly and aggressively by several of the nation's top news executives for the better part of a year, was won by ESPN and ABC News (both part of The Walt Disney Company) after the 35-year-old was promised extensive air time, a role in the Oscars (airing on ABC through at least 2020), and a digital empire that may include websites devoted to weather, education, economics and other topics. When it came to money, Silver was aggressive but not greedy, according to people familiar with the negotiations. Instead, he was focused on how he could expand the franchise he had built around FiveThirtyEight (the total number of electoral votes). FiveThirtyEight.com began as a standalone blog in 2008, and became part of NYTimes.com in 2010 as part of a three-year licensing agreement that ends next month.

In a stroke of luck for Silver , the negotiations began shortly after the frenzy over his 2012 forecasts showing President Obama would be easily reelected, which had become a running topic on cable news and late-night television - and even drew a shout-out from the president himself. There was early interest from NBC and Bloomberg. But for many months, Silver's conversations have pitted ESPN/ABC against The Times. Executive Editor Jill Abramson led the Times negotiations, and retaining Silver was such as high priority that publisher and chairman Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Mark Thompson were involved. The reasons Times executives were so obsessed with Silver were both financial and psychic:

--On the financial side, Silver was a huge traffic driver for NYTimes.com in political years . On Election Day 2012, The New Republic's Mark Tracy called Silver a "One-Man Traffic Machine for the Times" and "The Times's biggest brand": ""FiveThirtyEight is drawing huge traffic,' ... Abramson told me ... 'What's interesting is a lot of the traffic is coming just for Nate.' ... [E]arlier this year, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of [visits to The Times's politics coverage] included a stop at FiveThirtyEight, last week that figure was 71 percent. ... Silver's blog has buoyed more than just the politics coverage, becoming a significant traffic-driver for the site as a whole. Earlier this year, approximately 1 percent of visits to the New York Times included FiveThirtyEight. ... Yesterday, it was 20 percent."

--On the psychic side, Abramson and Washington Bureau Chief David Leonhardt, another key player in the drive to keep Silver, saw his brand-within-a-brand as a wave of the future. They wanted Silver to bring his secret sauce to other areas of coverage. And they want to develop other Nate Silvers, in the mold of Andrew Ross Sorkin's pioneering DealBook. So Silver's role as the template increased his value to The Times.

Silver had told The Times that he wanted to expand to weather, economics and anyplace else at The Times that had statistics and numbers he could bring to life. He had already begun doing that, with "Claims on I.R.S. Are Challenged By Probability," which ran in the paper, as did an examination of Chief Justice John Roberts's use of statistics, along with "Health Care Drives Increase in Government Spending" and "Congressional Proposal Could Create 'Tax Bubble.'" In December, Silver had his first front-page story in the print paper.

Early this year , The Times laid out a plan that would give Silver a staff of six to 12 bloggers to focus on a variety of topics, modeled on Ezra Klein's Wonkblog at The Washington Post. The plan was so specific that it named Megan Liberman, an up-and-coming deputy news editor at The Times, as Silver's editor. As recently as last month, some executives at The Times were confident Silver would stay, mainly because they had given him everything he had asked for. Silver is very interested in prestige, and the prestige of The Times was a huge deal to him. But Silver, who first made his name with forecasts for Major League Baseball players, still loves sports. At times, he felt unwelcome in the Times Sports section, and seemed to struggle to fit into its culture. The section is among the most innovative at the paper, but not in the areas that are Silver's wheelhouse.

ESPN's recruitment drive was led by President John Skipper and John Walsh, executive vice president and executive editor, who have brought a more literate style to ESPN and are pushing the organization in a more analytical direction. Silver's youth and credibility were hugely attractive. The model they proposed to Silver was Bill Simmons, "The Sports Guy," who has a personal megabrand within the ESPN brand through his "B.S. Report," blogs and podcasts. ESPN kept Simmons in part by making him editor-in-chief of a new ESPN website, Grantland.com, devoted to long-form journalism. In the quest for Silver, ESPN enlisted ABC News, which could provide a high-profile platform during elections and conventions. And Silver clicked with ABC's political personalities: George Stephanopoulos, Jonathan Karl, Jeff Zeleny and Rick Klein.

ESPN has deep pockets , and the rich, multi-platform offer to Silver, funded mostly by ESPN, is a drop in the bucket. Under the deal, to be announced soon, his flagship will return to FiveThirtyEight.com, which currently clicks through to NYTimes.com. The business model mirrors Grantland's: a strong, independent brand that ladders up to the bigger brand of ESPN (and, in this case, ABC News). Nate will appear on the air on ESPN and ABC, and will get "verticals," or web hubs, devoted to a variety of new topics. He's very interested in education, so there's been a lot of conversation about that. And, of course, weather and economics. His Oscars predictions did well for The Times, and now he'll work for the TV home of the Oscars.

Silver informed Abramson of his decision on Friday. She was none too pleased - a yearlong strategy, up in smoke. And Abramson is sensitive to the perception of Disney raiding The Times: Don Van Natta Jr., who was part of two Pulitzer-winning teams at the Times and produced muscular exposés on the British tabloid hacking scandal, became a senior writer for ESPN at the beginning of 2012. And Times correspondents Jeff Zeleny and Susan Saulny were named ABC correspondents in February. In response for a request to comment, The Times provided a 21-word statement: "We valued our partnership with Nate, particularly during the 2012 election campaign, and we wish him every success in the future."

Department Of Justice Begins to Mend Media Fences...

Politico's Mike Allen has an interesting thing on the Justice Department trying to reach out to major media outlets and the DOJ charts a more palatable path forward in terms of how to coexist with the media.

From today's Playbook:

The Justice Department began contacting D.C. bureau chiefs of major print and broadcast news organizations yesterday to set up a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss changes to the department's guidelines for subpoenas to news organizations. A source close to Holder said that in retrospect, he regrets the breadth and wording of the investigation involving Fox's James Rosen (which Holder approved), and recognizes that the subpoena for AP records (Holder had recused himself from that case) took in more phone lines than necessary.

"The A.G. realizes that things might have gotten a little out of balance, and he wants to make changes to be sure the rules fully account for the balance between the First Amendment and law enforcement," the source said. The first media meeting will be held at main Justice, likely later this week. A later meeting will include First Amendment advocates.

A Justice Department official tells Playbook : "Attorney General Eric Holder will hold meetings with several Washington bureau chiefs of national news organizations in the next two days as part of the review of existing Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. This review, which was announced by President Obama last Thursday, is consistent with the Attorney General's long standing belief that protecting and defending the First Amendment is essential to our democracy. These meetings will begin a series of discussions that will continue to take place over the coming weeks. During these sessions, the Attorney General will engage with a diverse and representative group of news media organizations, including print, wires, radio, television, online media and news and trade associations. Further discussions will include news media executives and general counsels as well as government experts in intelligence and investigative agencies."

Holder also has been doing bipartisan outreach to the Hill on media-shield legislation. Obama had announced in his counterterrorism speech last week that Holder "has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he'll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I've directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th."

A Justice official, re the AP records : "Because the investigation is ongoing and involves classified information, the Department is limited in what it can share. However, we have made clear that the subpoenas were sought only after a months-long investigation which included over 500 interviews and a review of tens of thousands of pages of documents. The subpoenas sought telephone toll records for specific telephone numbers associated with the reporters whose reports contained the leaked material. Toll records include only the sort of information the public commonly sees on their telephone bills, and do not include any information about the content of any conversations. The subpoenas covered a period of less than two months. Finally, the Department did not monitor, or attempt to obtain the content of, any telephone conversations. The focus here was on finding the leaker, and was not targeting AP or its ability to gather or report the news."

--MIKA BRZEZINSKI, on "Morning Joe": "A source close to Holder tells 'Morning Joe' that changes are coming with regards to leak investigations. We have also learned that the Justice Department will be holding meetings with journalists and news organizations over the next few weeks to go over their concerns."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The GOP has had it both ways and the Dems likely have no one to blame but themselves. The initial suspected "leaks" riled up Conservatives which led to the DOJ digging into some media members personal lives in an un-called for way. History seems prepared to slam the Obama Administration for not controlling some information and then over-reacting in a ham handed fashion to make matter worse. 

Source: 

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0513/playbook10785.html

Has the media chosen to ignore the Kermit Gosnell abortion trial?

Kermit Gosnell

Has the media chosen to ignore the Kermit Gosnell abortion trial?

Michelle Bachmann thinks so...

Last Thursday, Mrs. Bachmann, (R-MIN) made the following remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives...

“Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult for me to even speak about this subject today,” Bachmann said from the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday. “I’m a woman who’s been privileged to give birth to five children and I’ve also taken 23 children into my home as foster children.”

Michelle Bachmann

“It’s very hard for me to imagine, Mr. Speaker, that a doctor in this country—a doctor who took an oath to do no harm—would, in fact, kill a woman at his abortion clinic and he would sever the heads off of four babies that were born alive and potentially others, and commit one gruesome act after another and shamelessly the mainstream media has all but gone silent and failed to cover this horrific violence against women,” she said. “No one—Democrat or Republican—believes in violence against women, we abhor it.”

“But there’s nothing that comes close to what’s happened in this abortion clinic in Pennsylvania,” Bachmann continued. “And the officials in Pennsylvania in the State Department unfortunately, it appears, willfully ignored this heinous crime and also it appears that this has been ignored now across our nation.”

“Well, we won’t,” she said. “And I thank God for the men who stood up here today to stand for women and against violence against women. And I lend my voice and my support to that effort as well. I yield back [my time].”

I take issue with Mrs. Bachmann's suggestion that the "mainstream media has all but gone silent and failed to cover this horrific violence against women."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't much care for the style of politician Mrs. Bachmann is. She made such the impression upon me during the health care reform battles of recent years, including her infamous "death panels" that I trust almost nothing she says. Did the media fail to cover this story? Well, its pretty easy to find out. 

I did a google search for "kermit gosnell" under the CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, USA Today and Newsmax websites, searching specifically within their news departments. Here's the number of references I found for "kermit gosnell" on each of these websites:

CNN.com - 36 references 
CBS.com - 32 references
ABC.com - 251 references
NBC.com - 115 references
FOX News.com - 283 references
USA Today.com - 21 references
Newsmax.com - 48 references

I haven't read them all but I highly doubt there's a single story/editorial that defends Gosnell's unspeakable actions. (If you're unfamiliar with the story, read the Grand Jury report, its pretty damning to say the least.)  Now, reasonable people can disagree whether this story has gotten the right amount, too little or even perhaps too much coverage. The big three broadcast news organisations, (CBS, ABC and NBC) have an average of 132.7 related stories and articles about this tragedy. Two other news organisations, the USA Today, a national newspaper and Newsmax, a popular conservative news organisation, averaged 35 stories between them. ABC and Fox news were heaviest hitters on this story with an average of 267 related stories from their search. 

I think once again, Mrs. Bachmann is grandstanding and embellishing something that frankly stands on its own. For her to fight this imaginary fight against the evil "mainstream media" doesn't do anyone any good. Its a distraction from the real matter at hand, which is to figure out with a clear eye with Gosnell and his associates did or did not do and then what level of punishment is deserved through our legal system.

Bachmann would have us believe that this is a common occurrence in a land where abortions are legal. Which of course is wrong on many levels. Are their likely other clinics where regulations are not followed? Almost certainly. Might they be as bad as Gosnell's clinic? I hope not. I don't know what la-la land Mrs. Bachmann lives in, or thinks that we all live in, but if she woke up tomorrow and could close all the abortion clinics with a snap of her fingers, the horror stories would be common place and there would be NO place to legally and safely pursue an abortion. Abortions will not stop if you ban abortions. 


Sources: 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/elizabeth-harrington/2013/04/26/bachmann-media-all-gone-silent-trial-abortionist-kermit-gosnel

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

Glen Beck: Why "I left" Fox News...

 Forbes Magazine has an article out featuring an interview with talk show host Glenn Beck, where he discloses why he had to leave Fox news. It has to do with preserving his soul.

Read it here... 

Meanwhile, from this morning's Politico Playbook:

--A FOX NEWS SPOKEPERSON: "Glenn Beck wasn't trying to save his soul, he was trying to save his ass. Advertisers fled his show and even Glenn knows what that means in our industry. Yet, we still tried to give him a soft landing. Guess no good deed goes unpunished."


Sources: 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/26/glenn-beck-on-the-fox-news-pit-of-despair-and-why-he-got-out-of-cable-tv/

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Frank Luntz Tells It Like It Is...

Frank Luntz is one of America's most well known political consultants and pollster. A Conservative, Mr. Luntz has worked for several well known politicians including Newt Gingrich, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan as well as providing counsel to President Bush regarding climate change in 2002. Mr. Luntz is also utilized frequently on Fox News over-seeing focus groups after political debates. He is also known for a now famous GOPAC internal memo that suggested to Republicans to describe Democrats and their policies as “corrupt,” "devour," "greed," "hypocrisy," "liberal," "sick," and "traitors." He also  won Politifact's "Lie of the Year" in 2010 for calling health care reform a "government takeover." 

Mr. Luntz gave a speech and took questions at his alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania on April 22 to a few dozen students. At one point, he was asked about the current state of political polarization. In short, he was uncomfortable answering unless all recording devices were turned off and his response was off the record. The representative from the school newspaper agreed to turn his recorder off, but an audience member then decided to record Luntz' response with his iphone. Mr. Luntz was aware of this nor was any consent given. While I wonder why he didn't simply deflect the question into a more comfortable subject manner, it was wrong of the student to record his comments.

That said, the toothpaste is out of the tube and I think Mr. Luntz knows how this goes from here. Mother Jones has the video and its own, more detailed write up. Luntz opines on the problem that right wing talk radio, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, etc...are causing other Conservatives like Marco Rubio on immigration reform.

Mr. Luntz seems to be a step or two ahead of many in his party as witnessed not only by his "off the record" comments at Penn, but also his January 11th column in the Washington Post, where he takes a pretty eyes wide open look at the current GOP. I agree with him that the Republican Party would be well served to rebrand their party totally in a way more in tune with the voters they so badly desire votes from.

Click here for the Mother Jones article...

Watch just the video below:







Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOPAC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#cite_note-27

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/frank-luntz-rush-limbaugh-problematic-secret-tape

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-republicans-should-watch-their-language/2013/01/11/0f6f41fa-56ce-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html

Did the White House threaten Bob Woodward?

Playbook has the story on last night's cable tv drama that unfolded between Bob Woodward and a WH Advisor, who turned out to be Gene Sperling. Give it a read, but let's get a grip on this notion that the WH is plotting to kill Woodward, ok?

From this morning's Politico Playbook...

DEEP THROAT : POLITICO this morning obtained a fascinating email exchange last week between Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling, President Obama's economic adviser. Woodward had told us and CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday that a senior White House official - whom he didn't identify - had emailed him to warn he would "regret" questioning administration statements on sequestration. Woodward -- author of the bestselling "The Price of Politics," about 2011's failed quest for a grand bargain -- was reaching out to the official in advance of an opinion piece by Woodward in Sunday's Washington Post. One White House official, after reading Sperling's email and Woodward's reply, was surprised by Woodward's response in the interviews, given the "incredibly friendly" tone of both emails.

--From: Gene Sperling ... To: Bob Woodward ... Feb. 22, 11:52 p.m.: "Bob: I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

"But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying ... that Potus [President of the United States] asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bar[g]ain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding -- from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios -- but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA [Budget Control Act of 2011]: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

"I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

"My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize. Gene'

--From: Bob Woodward ... To: Gene Sperling ... Feb. 23, 7:23 a.m.: "Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob Sent from my iPhone"

Who's got the answer about the president? CBS's Mark Knoller does...

CBS's Mark Knoller is the subject of a nice write-up in the Washingtonian.com. Shane Harris has the byline with the story of the reporter that the reporters go to for details about the President. Knoller tracks stuff no one else does including the White House itself.

An excerpt:

“Mark, when was President Obama’s last full news conference?” asks a reporter from Reuters who, apparently on deadline, has just popped into the cramped press booth Mark Knoller shares with two colleagues from CBS News in the back of the White House Press Room.

“March 6, 2012,” Knoller says without looking up from his computer screen as he updates his Twitter feed. “It was 44 minutes long. It was in the briefing room.”

Knoller explains that although Obama held his first post-election news conference this afternoon, November 14, none of his interactions with reporters since March 6 count as a full-on news conference. They can only be described as limited question periods, unscheduled appearances in the briefing room, or impromptu exchanges. The Reuters reporter doesn’t ask, but Knoller could tell him exactly how many of those there were.

“Okay, March 6,” the reporter says. “That’s what we’ll go with. We’re counting on you.”

I turn to Knoller, who is typing a tweet while listening to three evening news broadcasts from a bank of TVs above his desk. “Do you get a lot of questions like that?” I ask.

He chuckles softly and shrugs, as if to say, “You think anyone else keeps track of this stuff?”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to read the entire article...

Source: 

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/whos-counting-at-the-white-house-mark-knoller-is/

The Ghost That Isn't There...

I don't believe in ghosts.

I don't believe in monsters under the bed.

I do believe in facts that can be proven.

There's a lot of things in life that we hear, read or are told that we shouldn't believe. The idea of why falsehoods are passed along is a complex one and not a riddle I've yet solved. At least completely.

Falsehoods are a sort of lie or deception. They come in all sizes, shapes and can be about just about anything. In this election season people are worked up, pissed off and anxious that "their guy" might not win next Tuesday. Some people, from both sides, are downright paranoid about what will happen if "the other guy" wins. Its best to tune those voices out, I think. They're not usually open to any kind of mental compromise. Their candidate is good and will save the Country, your candidate is evil and will destroy the Country. Blah-blah-blah...

The campaigns, advertisers and special interest groups all know how to construct an evocative message. Its easy to combine the right script, the right actor, the right production values, music, lighting, etc. Sometimes ads tell the truth, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they split the difference and leave it up to the viewer to decide on their own.

Have you seen this commercial from Billionaire Thomas Peterffy?




Mr. Peterffy is a success. Born in Budapest, Hungary during World War II, not satisfied with living in a Communist Country, he came to the Unites States in 1965, learned how to program computers and also consulted various Wall Street companies. Eventually starting his own electronic trading firm, which grew rapidly and made Mr. Peterffy, a very wealthy man. A success story, income level and lifestyle that all would've been impossible in his native country.

Mr. Peterffy raised a family, sent his kids to college and has been very generous with his wealth. Forbes magazine estimates his net worth at $4.6 Billion. Bloomberg says his net worth is closer to $7.6 Billion. Regardless, he's quite wealthy. In 2007, he and his partners sold a small 10% slice of his company in an initial public offering. Within five years, his company had grown. In the first half of 2012, his company made a profit of over $585 Million on revenues of $1.36 billion in sales. While the stock price has fallen almost 50% since they went public in 2007, the money has kept pouring in for Mr. Peterffy.

In his commercial, which he paid for out of his own pocket and cost between $5-$10 million to run on several centrist and left leaning television networks, he expresses a concern that America is basically losing her way and according to Peterffy, in danger of becoming a modern day version of his homeland, except this time under some sort of Socialist rule. Caused in large part, by the anti-rich attitude of the Obama Administration. While he mentions no candidate by name in his ad, he does implore the viewer to vote Republican. He has contributed to several Republican campaigns in recent years including Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Linda McMahon and John Boehner.

He feels the wealthy have been attacked unfairly, presumably by President Obama; "I’ve paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime, now I am being told that I am not contributing my fair share?" Peterffy said. 

$1.9 Billion in taxes over a lifetime is a chunk, no matter how you slice it.

Let's get back to some things that aren't there, shall we? 

The tax rate for the highest income bracket is 35% and has been at that level since 2003. President Obama has not suggested increasing that amount.* The highest tax rate for corporate income is 39% and has been at that level since 1987. Mr. Obama has proposed the highest rate be dropped to 28% .

The meme that President Obama is out to raise all of our taxes and drag us into some Socialist utopia is laughable. He's not. 

Mr. Peterffy has done quite well for himself. He is a great example of the American Dream in action. But Mr. Peterffy's concerns ring hollow when faced with the facts. To paint such a dramatic picture and evoke such imagery from a harsh time in the world's history is obviously a very effective way to communicate his message: Vote Republican. That's what he wants us to do. Before our glorious country is betrayed into an alternate way of life. 

He's an old man. He built his own business from nothing. He deserves respect. He is a poster child for what we've boasted about in terms of what America can do for anyone if they work hard enough. But he is more than that. He is a business man. A capitalist. An opportunist. And, if he has his way, a manipulator. 

Peterffy's commercial is a sales pitch. Nothing more, nothing less. He's willing to use his success as a means of frightening his viewers. And they will, because to reject what this self made man has to say is an anathema to most people. With his credentials, he can put forth this scary story about a ghost under our beds and we'll believe it. Sadly, its as much con job as anything else. 

Taxes are lower than at any time in the last 30 years... 
Obama proposes a lowered maximum corporate tax rate of 28% after twenty five years of 39%...
"Obamacare" is a massive stimulus program for private market health insurers and drug companies...
Most of the monies used to bail out the US auto industry have been paid back...
Regulations on Wall Street are too weak to prevent another meltdown...
President Obama appointed two long time Wall Street insiders to his financial team, (Geithner and Summers)...
Candidate Obama's biggest donors included no less than five Wall Street firms...

Mr. Peterffy, I salute your success. Your success has enriched this Country and we have both benefited from your being here. I wish you hadn't made this commercial, Sir. The "scary thing" you're suggesting to your viewers that's hiding under the bed isn't there. It isn't and you know its not there. To use your own success in some sort of con is wrong. To tell a group of people a thing when you know it to be flawed in its premise is fundamentally wrong. It was wrong when the Russians tried to tell you that Communism was the best form of Government. It is wrong for you to tell your fellow citizens that we're in danger of losing of fundamental form of government. 

There's no ghosts or monsters coming to get us.

Nor are there any Socialists coming, either...


*Correction: A reader correctly points out that President Obama has proposed raising taxes on those who earn more than $250K per yr., specifically that amount above $250k, that would be taxed at a tiered rate of either 36% or 39.6%, which would revert back to their pre-2001 levels. (Currently, the top two tiers are 33% and 35%.)


Sources:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/billionaire-peterffy-says-1-dot-9-billion-taxes-support-poor

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rich-worried-and-buying-ad-time/

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-corporate-income-tax-rates-income-years-1909-2012

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204131004577237771704513042.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ira-stoll-on-how-obamacare-is-a-boon-to

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008

When the Going Gets Rough, the Weird Turn Pro...

Former gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, "When the going gets rough, the weird turn pro..." Essentially saying that those who exhibit an ongoing fairly mild level of weirdness during so-called "Normal" times, up their weirdness to a professional level when things get truly rough, difficult, intense, etc.

Much of yesterday and into yesterday evening, the media was being teased by the Drudge Report in tandem with Sean Hannity of Fox News teased a major breaking story that would fundamentally change the course of this election. Hannity's opening line on his program last night were, "A bombshell is about to be dropped on the 2012 race for the White House."

Remembering the last time Hannity suggested a video of Barack Obama was going to have a major effect on his re-election bid, (remember the video of Obama and "radical" Harvard professor Derek Bell?) I have to admit I was braced for something stupid. Drudge, Hannity, the good people at Tucker Carlson's "The Daily Caller" didn't disappoint.

The shocking video that was "released" last night was actually an old video of a speech then candidate Obama made to a group of African American ministers at Hampton University, a black college that opened its doors back in 1861.

This is astounding to me and many others that this video could be remotely considered a bombshell as the insinuation was that this was a never-before seen video, probably suppressed by Obama/Left Wing radical groups, that would collectively shake and wake American voters from their Obama-trance the President had cleverly placed them in, mostly with his blackness, several years ago.

Its nothing of the sort.

How could it be a shocker if it had already been covered back in 2007? Covered by Fox News no less? And other major news organisations?

The three main takeaways, according to those who "uncovered" this video were Obama's comments and acknowledgment of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the controversial long-time pastor of his family but who Obama denounced during the campaign, his belief that the government should be doing more to fund minority business and improved public transportation and his criticism of the federal Government response to people in New Orleans during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

What's "news," let alone shocking to the point of being a bombshell? Oh, maybe the fake "black" accent that Obama is known to at times slide into when addressing predominately African American audiences?

What's next? Bulletins telling us we've landed on the moon? That the Space Shuttle has crashed? That Bill Buckner missed a ground ball? C'mon...

As Thompson wrote a long time ago, the weird have gone pro. These are not amateurs, these are professional bullshit artists of the first degree.

Speaking of shit, I think today's Republican Party is in deep shit when it comes to their future. Recent polls indicate African Americans favor President Obama over challenger Mitt Romney by a staggering 94%-0 mark. Latino voters favor Obama by a massive 50 point margin (72% - 22) according to another national poll.

What voting blocks are seemingly supportive of today's GOP? Women? No. Minorities? No. The GLTB crowd? No. Care to take a wild guess which groups are growing in numbers? Yup...all of them.

Conservative leaning news groups like the National Journal to conservative commentators like David Frum are basically shaking their heads in response to the laughable crap that posed as "news" last night across conservative circles. If you're a conservative and you actually had a "a-HA!!!" feeling in your gut last night when you learned about this, go splash some water on your face and wake up.

This tired, border-line racist group of mostly older white guys is basically on notice. Growing swaths of the American Public don't want what you're selling, are tired of your scare tactics and thinly veiled racist attacks on President Obama. Proceed with caution, as you may be planting the seeds of a very bitter crop. America is moving on, and I suspect will re-elect this President. You can continue to shock and amaze the American people, not to mention plenty of conservatives, with your strategy of obstruction and mis-information. Its getting harder and harder to take you seriously. The leaders of the GOP need to do some soul-searching over the next few months about what their party really stands for.

Source:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-08/news/31137678_1_andrew-breitbart-rally-video-harvard-law-school

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-obama-latinos-20121003,0,3942527.story

http://www.nationaljournal.com//politics/obama-s-2007-video-bombshell-or-old-news--20121002

http://www.nationaljournal.com//politics/obama-s-2007-video-bombshell-or-old-news--20121002

Two very different interviews with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf...

Two very different interviews with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf...

Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf has been in America long time. Born in 1948 Kuwait to Egyptian parents, Rauf  moved to New York City in the 1960's, where he, from 1983 to 2009, served as Imam of Masjid al-Farah. Rauf studied physics at Columbia University, where he earned his Bachelor's Degree in nuclear engineering in 1969 before earning a master's degree in plasma physics at Stevens Institute in Hoboken, New Jersey. He has also authored three books on Islam and its place in Western society and founded two non profit organisations charted with improving the caliber of the conversation of Islam in the West. He was also invited by President Bush immediately after the attacks in New York City and the Pentagon to speak with the FBI and the US State Department officials. He has a reputation for being a moderate Muslim, who condemned the attacks on 9/11 as "un-Islamic." He has rejected radical forms and practices of Islam. I have watched/listened to several interviews with this man and in my opinion,  he is a model of an American Muslim. I've listened to him defend the building of an interfaith community center, (which was supported by the local Community Board), which has been quite controversial. While I agree that the Center could have been built in some other place, I don't necessarily agree that it should have been. Its removed far enough from the actual ground zero, despite the pejorative nickname many gave the project, ie. "the ground Zero Mosque." 


I hear a man of grace defending his faith, finding fault when applicable and a man who has spent decades trying to help bridge the gap between Muslims and Christians in our Country. I say we need more men like Imam Rauf. This is not to say he is without controversy himself. He has made statements in the past which many found highly offensive, especially those in the aftermath of 9/11. He has also publicly apologized for all of them. 


With Islam growing in practice here in the United States, surely there is no version of the world that I can comprehend that doesn't include sensitive relationships with Islamic Countries. I say the better we can understand each other, the better for us all. This notion that suggests that the Muslim faith is an enemy of Christianity is wrong and dangerous. We should agree that radical "any faith" isn't good, but also avoid the broad brushstrokes of ignorance and hatred.


Recently, there have been two very different interviews with Imam Rauf. One was conducted on May 10th of this year by Pete Dominick, talk show host of "Stand Up with Pete Dominick" heard on the Sirius/XM POTUS channel (#124) Monday through Fridays at 3:00pm. Dominick is a slightly left of center host who's strong point is having interesting guests from all viewpoints making their case. He does not engage in the "gotcha" journalism or bullying/shouting over his guests that other talk show hosts utilize heavily. The conversation with Rauf was friendly, probing and highly informative. Dominick asked tough questions of his guest pertaining to Shariah Law, the radical Islamic voices shouting louder than the moderate ones, women's right's, etc. I felt I learned something from this interview. 


You can listen to the entire Imam Rauf/Pete Dominck interview here... (...its about 45 minutes long and I highly recommend it.)


The other interview I'd like readers to consider is the one conducted by Fox News' Sean Hannity on May 23, 2012. Hannity is one of the most popular talk show hosts in America with both a radio and a television show Monday through Friday, with millions of listeners. Hannity is firmly to the right on most issues and makes no attempt to suggest otherwise. Hannity took a very different approach than Dominick, almost being hostile with the Imam, especially about a few previous comments Rauf had made in the aftermath of 9/11. The bulk of the interview was spent on these controversial comments as opposed to the current state of Islam in America, the Middle East, etc... To my eyes, it was Hannity bringing up one comment after another, sometimes giving Rauf time to provide some context and sometimes not, and then moving directly onto another comment, and another, and another. Rauf apologized for most of his controversial remarks. Hannity clearly looked the hero to his loyal viewers, who in their eyes, saw the host toss around the Imam like a ragdoll. Instead of a 80/20 split between bringing up old comments and some current issue discussion, I wish it had been inverted, with more time being spent on current affairs involving Islam and the US. 


You can watch the entire Imam/Hannity interview here... (...its about 15 minutes long and worth watching...)


I understand why Hannity handled the segment as he did. For his audience, a dense policy discussion isn't what they want to hear. Also, to be fair, his program is set up in :15 minute segments, not 45-60 minute blocks, which makes it hard to develop much context or nuance. That said, in my opinion, Hannity had this list of comments from Rauf, and only wanted to force him to deal with those words, even though that many of them were over ten years old. There's no question that Hannity is a skilled host and quite adept at controlling the conversation to suit his needs. Ironically, with the charges of "left wing gotcha journalism" being a standard ingredient of many voices complaints, I felt Hannity "got" Imam Rauf that evening. 


Some will prefer Dominick's interview and some will prefer Hannity's. Its hard to say that there was as much depth to the Fox segment as there was on POTUS. I wish Hannity and Rauf would have been able to have more of a conversation than they did. Hannity does what Hannity does. Dominick is consistently providing the quality interviews across a wide swath of subject material that many listeners crave but have a hard time finding on their radios or televisions. 


Listen/Watch both and tell me which you preferred and why...


(Edited for clarity...)


Sources: 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf#Park51


http://standupwithpetedominick.com/segments/audio/05-10-12-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-int

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmeWtuX7HeY

Three Degrees of Dumbness...

In the last ten days or so, there have been three stories involving an airline passenger, an official of the AFL-CIO and a national Adult magazine all being, well...dumb...

All were targeting some element from the other end of the political spectrum, with whom they felt they had a beef...

1. A female passenger boarded an American Airlines flight with a T-shirt that read, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d fuck a senator." She was instructed by the pilot of her originating flight that she'd need to change her shirt before boarding her connecting flight home. She was able to cover it up with her shawl and successfully caught the next flight home later that same day. 


I'd heard this discussed on the Sirius Left channel as well as browsed a few headlines on the internet. Much of the coverage I heard and saw had morphed this incident into yet another attack on women's rights. While I agree that its not been a great year or two to be a woman in terms of fending off legislative attacks from the Right on various abortion/contraception issues, I don't see the connection here. The airline cited a rule that addresses clothing that might be offensive to other passengers. The fact that she passed through security and flew all the way to her connecting location I think, is immaterial to the basic issue. When you knowingly board an airplane with a t-shirt on that has the word "fuck" on the front, guess what? You've crossed the line and you've earned whatever grief the airline chooses to hand you. Its a stunt, almost daring a large corporation to take you on in a fairly public way. While I agree with the general sentiment, the form and timing of communicating that particular message was entirely inappropriate. Its silliness like this that cheapens  the legitimate issue of women's rights and the recent and alarming trend we've seen from Conservative legislators of late. Dumb...


2. Donna DeWitt, President of the South Carolina AFL-CIO attended a party with other union supporters recently. Captured on video is DeWitt hitting a pinata with the likeness of SC Governor Nikki Haley on it, which brought cheers from the crowd. Governor Haley is no friend of union in South Carolina, to be sure. “All it does is it makes my heels taller, my heels sharper so that I can kick harder,” she said. “I’m not going to stop beating up on the unions. I’m not going to stop beating up on the Democrats for wasteful spending. … I’m a lot tougher than that. I’m going to keep on kicking,” said Haley. 


DeWitt isn't a private citizen. She is the President of her State's AFL-CIO association, which is a fairly high profile job to have. In this day and age, it should be obvious to anyone with a public title that there will be cameras at almost all events. Most smart phones now also function as a video camera with pretty impressive quality. While it may have been a private event, nothing is really private anymore. In spite of her differences with the Governor, something shouldv'e went off in her head that said, "Hold up, the last thing I or we need is a YouTube video clip of me beating Nikki Haley's face in with a club, let alone enjoying it." That something didn't go off and thus this unnecessary clip has brought a healthy dose of criticism from the Governor herself and RW media outlets like Fox News. A totally unforced error on DeWitt's part for which, the union members will pay the price...Dumb...


3. Last week, Hustler Magazine posted a picture of conservative journalist and television commentator SE Cupps with a photo-shopped male sex organ in her mouth. The publication included this description along with the photo: 


 “S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator, who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.”


They also included a disclaimer: “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose.”

Well, that makes it all better, doesn't it? 

I don't think Larry Flynt gives a crap about a potential de-funding of Planned Parenthood. Not in the least. That said, I do think Flynt cares quite a bit about selling magazines and website subscriptions. Targeting a pretty, conservative professional journalist in such a way is about as bad as it gets. Because of his known political leanings and description of her joining the "dark side," it stands to reason he feels he is aligning himself with the Left, as opposed to the Right. Flynt is a pig and has been for a long time. Whether you agree with Cupp's politics or not, a picture like this isn't the work of a creative, edgy magazine that is worthy of reading. Its the equivalent of a 7th grader scrawling a dirty word on the inside of a bathroom stall, only because its NOT a 7th grader doing the scrawling, its ten times worse. Hey Larry, newsflash...you don't come off as standing up for women by exploiting an unwitting and certainly unwilling participant. Dumb...

Sources: 


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/05/22/american-airlines-rejects-female-passenger-because-political-pro-choice-t-shirt-i

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76703.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/05/23/the-real-war-on-women-hustlers-disturbing-attack-on-s-e-cupp/

"The West Wing" cast finally reunites...

"The West Wing" cast finally reunites...

The West Wing was one of televisions greatest political dramas of all-time and fans of the show have longed for a reunion of the cast into a more contemporary production.

Finally, after several years of waiting, the wait is over and Reasonable Conversation has the preview:

Featuring cast members Martin Sheen at President Jeb Bartlett, Allison Janney as Press Secretary CJ Craig, among others, the following clip brings us up to date on the latest presidential initiative the West Wing gang has been working on.

With a big thanks to our friends at Funny or Die, enjoy the preview:

Walk & Talk - The West Wing Reunion from Martin Sheen

Should Women Be Allowed to Play at Augusta National Golf Club?

Should Women Be Allowed to Play at Augusta National Golf Club?

They already are, as long as they are invited by a member. The annual fussfest that occurs during the playing of the Masters Tournament is a bit uncalled for. Every year the media gets its knickers in a wad reporting on the (non) story about how the Augusta National Golf Club doesn't permit women to join its club. We see pictures of groups of upset women with signs and bullhorns trying to draw awareness to this pressing national issue:

That's totally fine by me.

I suppose.

This is about women being able to join a private club. A private golf club. Let's not confuse this with an equal rights issue lest Martin Luther King, Jr. rise up and remind what his point really was about. The Club doesn't discriminate against some women. It discriminates against all women, so in my mind, its not offensive to me. If they only refused membership to black women or jewish women or women from Alabama or women with red hair, then we'd have something to talk about. Private clubs are allowed to set their own membership rules. They do it all the time. The ANGC doesn't even have a membership application process because no one is even allowed to apply for membership, its invitation only.

This Club isn't run on public dollars, grants or loans from the Government. Its not located on public lands. I'm guessing it does pay its share of taxes, which benefits a lot of people. It does quite a bit of charitable work in the community and elsewhere. It has learn to play programs for both boys and girls. (We'll let them decide how best to explain to the young ladies they train that they won't be welcomed as members any time soon.)

Augusta National is a throwback. They have shown a slow willingness to change over time as blacks like former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann are now members. They've also dropped the "blacks only" caddy policy several years ago. They seem, by my eyes, to be moving in the right direction socially. I suspect someday a women will be invited to join. And then this annual business will fade away.

If I'm a women golfer, I'd be far more concerned with what some elected officials are attempting to legislate with my health care rights than I would be about membership at the local tight-ass club in Augusta, GA.