Heather, I can't understand why our Democratic representatives are not on every media outlet letting Americans know exactly what is in the bill they passed in May, contrasting it with the Republican proposal, and hammering at McConnells obstruction in refusing to take it up. Why is this. Why isn't the media reporting more about this? Is there anything we can do to make this more public?
Heather, I can't understand why our Democratic representatives are not on every media outlet letting Americans know exactly what is in the bill they passed in May, contrasting it with the Republican proposal, and hammering at McConnells obstruction in refusing to take it up. Why is this. Why isn't the media reporting more about this? Is there anything we can do to make this more public?
It strikes me yet again (this has been going on since at least Newt Gingrich did it) that the Republican delegation’s motto must be “The best defense is a good (or constant) offense.” No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans attack, and characterize in the worst terms what they want the American people to believe about Democratic actions. The Democrats then respond, usually in a more principled and restrained way, keeping largely to their negotiating points. Two utterly different ways of using the media. Unfortunately, when media, the hungry beast that moves fast and doesn’t stop to chew, reports an exchange, it always sounds as if the Democrats are completely flat footed. They’re not, necessarily, but the Republicans take care to gin up the most emotion in readers/watchers/listeners, while Dems look like the careful nerds reading their position in a food fight, while the Republicans are throwing lasagne and salad around.
Deborah, you are spot on. The Dems are too often too nuanced and thorough in their arguments. The GOP just goes for the jugular. Since the news media, especially TV news, is a 'if it bleeds, it leads' animal, they want it quick and dirty (and the dirtier the better).
Jeffery Toobin was interviewed about his new book last week on Fresh Air, and talking about the Mueller Report, he pointed out that, in his opinion, Mueller was from the old school, when integrity still mattered, when you didn't play politics with the law, and he was thus utterly out-gunned, especially once Barr stepped into the frame. He thought because he'd known Barr, who had acted honorably in the past, that Barr would back him up. Instead, Barr shivved him first chance he got. I'm paraphrasing somewhat, but that was the gist.
The problem with idealists is that they desperately want to believe the best of their fellows. That is an admirable stance, but often deadly. And not just to the idealist. Without a healthy dose of cynicism or suspicion, the idealist will always be at the mercy of the opportunist. At least, that's been my experience. The only thing Ronnie Ray-gun ever said that I agreed with was, "Trust, but verify."
Sandra, your point about opportunist beating idealist resonates; I’ve seen it happen in the workplace as well as in the political sphere. Mueller used all his lawyerly probity to keep his investigation’s scope narrow, and to speak in measured phrases that would protect his professionalism. Barr, knowing that his friend Mueller would comport himself this way, swept away the traditional rule book in favor of, as you say, the shiv.
In a perfect world, idealists would learn how to carry their morals into the contemporary fray and express/live them without resorting to the sucker punch (guess which category I fall into — just call me Candide). Adam Schiff and the House impeachment managers gave me great hope that expressing ethical values and prosecuting with them as foundational is not a dead art or value.
Deborah, I think what got me on that track was watching the movie, "Red Joan" yesterday, about a physics student in the late '30s at Cambridge, who gets recruited after university to work on Britain's top-secret nuclear program. I won't go into the whole twisted plot, but suffice to say she gives A-bomb critical info to someone she considered a friend, knowing it was going to the Russians. This was after the war. She had seen the newsreels of the Hiroshima bombing and that led her to her decision. Her reasoning was what we later called MAD - mutual assured destruction. She truly believed she was saving future lives and preventing the use of nuclear weapons in a war from ever happening again.
Her motives may have been pure, but 50-some years later she was forced to confront the collateral damage, even to her own family, that her idealism had caused.
Had she not been so naïve, she might have seen that she was being used. Alas, that idealism again..............
This Administration has thrown even Reagan’s “Trust but verify” dictum on its head. It subverts trust at every turn, and keeps whatever media outlets that do fact-check busy fact-checking the blizzard of outrage. “Flooding the zone” weaponizes even decency and professionalism.
I did a meme a couple years ago showing Sean Connery as Jim Malone and paraphrased: “You want get a Repugnant? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the winner’s way!”
In my own words I added: “Take the high road?” “Play Nice?” No you can’t take the high road when dealing with low-life scum. When they go low – Stomp their Ass.
I have been asking these exact questions!!! Everything I am hearing/reading in the media is quoting the repubs saying the dems are holding up the aid, when in fact it was the repubs who sat on that bill for 2 MONTHS, only taking it up 1 week prior to their August vacation (sure wish I could have one of those).
And, seriously, taking money from Social Security, forcing children into a crowded school during a pandemic in order for states to get much needed aid😡, and openly allowing/encouraging the sabotaging of the postal system to destroy our ability to vote?!?!?
Don’t forget curtailing the census period to justify allocating fewer funds to areas (most often low-income & POC) where individuals are more apt to speak to a census-taker than to mail a form.
Anybody remember this? I was at USCIS when this happened. When flowers were delivered to our building by the truck load, it shut us down for days. They were donated to hospitals, nursing homes, etc., but it caused chaos. I’m not sure if we should send them to the US Postmaster or The White House, or both.
Lovely idea for peaceful protest, and 1,000 flower deliveries to a target recipient sounds doable. But DeJoy clearly has no heart and would let them rot rather than donate them. Or if going the path of donation, DeJoy would further burden the beleaguered mail carriers on the ground. The optics would have to be calculated, weighed, and managed.
In 2007, the target recipient was Emilio T. Gonzalez, Ph.D., Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an Under Secretary position within the Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Gonzalez had served in the U.S. Army and in international diplomatic positions. He did not seem to have been an oligarch.
Interesting aside to see what a different world it is today with DHS under Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf.
Thank you for sharing this! I do not remember it but I paid much less attention to the news and politics back then. I love the peaceful protest modeled on Ghandi and that the flowers were sent on to others to whine they might have brought some measure of joy. What a beautiful protest.
Heather, I can't understand why our Democratic representatives are not on every media outlet letting Americans know exactly what is in the bill they passed in May, contrasting it with the Republican proposal, and hammering at McConnells obstruction in refusing to take it up. Why is this. Why isn't the media reporting more about this? Is there anything we can do to make this more public?
It strikes me yet again (this has been going on since at least Newt Gingrich did it) that the Republican delegation’s motto must be “The best defense is a good (or constant) offense.” No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans attack, and characterize in the worst terms what they want the American people to believe about Democratic actions. The Democrats then respond, usually in a more principled and restrained way, keeping largely to their negotiating points. Two utterly different ways of using the media. Unfortunately, when media, the hungry beast that moves fast and doesn’t stop to chew, reports an exchange, it always sounds as if the Democrats are completely flat footed. They’re not, necessarily, but the Republicans take care to gin up the most emotion in readers/watchers/listeners, while Dems look like the careful nerds reading their position in a food fight, while the Republicans are throwing lasagne and salad around.
Deborah, you are spot on. The Dems are too often too nuanced and thorough in their arguments. The GOP just goes for the jugular. Since the news media, especially TV news, is a 'if it bleeds, it leads' animal, they want it quick and dirty (and the dirtier the better).
Jeffery Toobin was interviewed about his new book last week on Fresh Air, and talking about the Mueller Report, he pointed out that, in his opinion, Mueller was from the old school, when integrity still mattered, when you didn't play politics with the law, and he was thus utterly out-gunned, especially once Barr stepped into the frame. He thought because he'd known Barr, who had acted honorably in the past, that Barr would back him up. Instead, Barr shivved him first chance he got. I'm paraphrasing somewhat, but that was the gist.
The problem with idealists is that they desperately want to believe the best of their fellows. That is an admirable stance, but often deadly. And not just to the idealist. Without a healthy dose of cynicism or suspicion, the idealist will always be at the mercy of the opportunist. At least, that's been my experience. The only thing Ronnie Ray-gun ever said that I agreed with was, "Trust, but verify."
Sandra, your point about opportunist beating idealist resonates; I’ve seen it happen in the workplace as well as in the political sphere. Mueller used all his lawyerly probity to keep his investigation’s scope narrow, and to speak in measured phrases that would protect his professionalism. Barr, knowing that his friend Mueller would comport himself this way, swept away the traditional rule book in favor of, as you say, the shiv.
In a perfect world, idealists would learn how to carry their morals into the contemporary fray and express/live them without resorting to the sucker punch (guess which category I fall into — just call me Candide). Adam Schiff and the House impeachment managers gave me great hope that expressing ethical values and prosecuting with them as foundational is not a dead art or value.
Deborah, I think what got me on that track was watching the movie, "Red Joan" yesterday, about a physics student in the late '30s at Cambridge, who gets recruited after university to work on Britain's top-secret nuclear program. I won't go into the whole twisted plot, but suffice to say she gives A-bomb critical info to someone she considered a friend, knowing it was going to the Russians. This was after the war. She had seen the newsreels of the Hiroshima bombing and that led her to her decision. Her reasoning was what we later called MAD - mutual assured destruction. She truly believed she was saving future lives and preventing the use of nuclear weapons in a war from ever happening again.
Her motives may have been pure, but 50-some years later she was forced to confront the collateral damage, even to her own family, that her idealism had caused.
Had she not been so naïve, she might have seen that she was being used. Alas, that idealism again..............
This Administration has thrown even Reagan’s “Trust but verify” dictum on its head. It subverts trust at every turn, and keeps whatever media outlets that do fact-check busy fact-checking the blizzard of outrage. “Flooding the zone” weaponizes even decency and professionalism.
I have said this before. The Dems are bringing prayer beads and a baguette to a knife fight. they should be thinking of bringing a tank in
I did a meme a couple years ago showing Sean Connery as Jim Malone and paraphrased: “You want get a Repugnant? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the winner’s way!”
In my own words I added: “Take the high road?” “Play Nice?” No you can’t take the high road when dealing with low-life scum. When they go low – Stomp their Ass.
Very evocative comments, and throwing lasagna and salad around made me laugh. Thanks.
Sorry — got carried away with the “whiles” and hit Post too soon! Last sentence, take out that first “while”.
I have been asking these exact questions!!! Everything I am hearing/reading in the media is quoting the repubs saying the dems are holding up the aid, when in fact it was the repubs who sat on that bill for 2 MONTHS, only taking it up 1 week prior to their August vacation (sure wish I could have one of those).
And, seriously, taking money from Social Security, forcing children into a crowded school during a pandemic in order for states to get much needed aid😡, and openly allowing/encouraging the sabotaging of the postal system to destroy our ability to vote?!?!?
I am beyond livid!!
Don’t forget curtailing the census period to justify allocating fewer funds to areas (most often low-income & POC) where individuals are more apt to speak to a census-taker than to mail a form.
Anybody remember this? I was at USCIS when this happened. When flowers were delivered to our building by the truck load, it shut us down for days. They were donated to hospitals, nursing homes, etc., but it caused chaos. I’m not sure if we should send them to the US Postmaster or The White House, or both.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSN1035511020070710
Lovely idea for peaceful protest, and 1,000 flower deliveries to a target recipient sounds doable. But DeJoy clearly has no heart and would let them rot rather than donate them. Or if going the path of donation, DeJoy would further burden the beleaguered mail carriers on the ground. The optics would have to be calculated, weighed, and managed.
In 2007, the target recipient was Emilio T. Gonzalez, Ph.D., Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an Under Secretary position within the Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Gonzalez had served in the U.S. Army and in international diplomatic positions. He did not seem to have been an oligarch.
Interesting aside to see what a different world it is today with DHS under Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf.
https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/commissioners-and-directors/emilio-t-gonzalez
Thank you for sharing this! I do not remember it but I paid much less attention to the news and politics back then. I love the peaceful protest modeled on Ghandi and that the flowers were sent on to others to whine they might have brought some measure of joy. What a beautiful protest.