A Sweet Profile

Lynn Sweet “Surprised” Obama Said Cambridge Cops “Acted Stupidly”

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

It was not the first time.  Many individuals fear it will not be the last.  Last evening, during a Presidential press conference, millions witnessed the characteristic wonderment that is Lynn Sweet.  Whilst citizens in this country anxiously awaited more words from the President on what, for most is truly a tangible issue, Health Care coverage, Ms Sweet decided to move the conversation in her own memorable manner.  Provocateur , otherwise known as Chicago Sun Times Columnist Lynn Sweet did as she often does.  She changed the subject.  

For her, it seems entertainment, or that which might expand her now illustrious career is far more pleasurable than the tedious text that has the potential to improve life for every American.  Sweet might justify her stance by saying; “racial profiling” affects us all, or does it.  Perchance, her personal profile is the priority.

As she had done in the past, on the evening of July 22, 2009, this previously little known Journalist diverted attention.  Lynn Sweets said it was not a plot.  She had no intention of inciting the American people.  It was merely a matter of “timing.”  The White House Press Correspondent thought it “appropriate” to speak of what no one had throughout the night.  “Noted Harvard African-American studies Professor Henry Louis Gates Junior,” and his arrest at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts was, in her mind, the more meaningful matter.

For a long while, Lynn Sweet has defined what her readers must think of as imperative.  Her personal desires and chutzpah drive her.  “I do come from a place where people are not shy about mixing it up a little bit.” If Ms Sweet is not interested in a subject or a soul she will ignore what she thinks irrelevant.

In 1999, a  virtually unknown Illinois State Senator Barack Obama introduced himself to the Sun Times Washington Bureau Chief.  The author handed the Chicago tabloid Writer his autobiographical account, “Dreams From My Father.”  Five years later, in June, she belatedly began to leaf through the pages of the tome.  It was not until late in 2004, after United States Senator Obama  delivered his address at the Democratic National Convention, and the book was re-released that Sweet thought of the read as other than a bothersome endeavor.  

Once read, the Columnist offered quite a critical review of what had become a widely praised publication..   Perhaps, in 2004 and in July 2009, Sweet preferred to deviate from the norm, if only to distinguish herself as different.   No one can know with certainty.  Nonetheless, Americans were able to observe the Chicago Sun Times Correspondent created this distraction much in the way she had previously done.  Perchance, her style has helped advance her personal prominence.

Surely, she would later say, people have a right to know what the President thinks about issues other than Health Care reform.  Indeed, in her own blog post Lynn Sweet reminds Americans that two other reporters spoke on themes not related to Health care.  However, each of these asked what the Administration might do as it pertains to policy.  

The Sun Times Bureau Chief however, chose to ask the President for a personal perspective.  Intentionally, she presented a problem that evokes much passion. She stated, “What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?” Certainly, Lynn Sweet defends; she did not consider how much the public loves to engage in divisive discussions.  The innocent bearer of information did not ponder the known veracity.  Conflict sells papers.  Assuredly, it never occurred to Ms Sweet she would garner greater visibility if her question were emotionally charged.  

However, history gives us pause.  We have seen in the past, when Lynn Sweet does what she does best; create a scene, her pocketbook and professional status profits.  A sensational story will cause her numbers to soar.   And so it was.

Damn the proposed reforms.  Forget what Americans think vital, possible alternatives that would improve medical practices.  Lynn Sweet wants to talk about race, racism, police, anything but policies that could benefit average Americans, Black, white, and every shade in between.

Friends, fellow reporters, readers of her articles, and of her blog understand.  Barack Obama was not able to charm Lynn Sweet.  she is not characterized as one who has an axe to grind.  Ms Sweet is sincerely on a mission.  She has her own plan.  The Correspondent’s mission began but a short time ago.  The Washington Bureau Chief said of herself.

“I started looking at a lot of blogs and I realized you need a sensibility!” she said. “Why am I here? What can I give you? I suppose I could make a blog on ‘Lynn Sweet’s thoughts about … whatever!'” . . .

“If I had choice between writing about something Bush did, or a congressman did, or Obama, why wouldn’t I go to something I saw people were backing? I just knew from the enormous amount of coverage Obama was getting that oooh, I knew I should be all things Obama. I never had a meeting; no one ever told me to do it. It was just like, I, I just smelled the coffee. I just understood that’s what I could be about.”

Thus, Ms Sweet became the news writer most closely associated with anything Obama.  Frequently, on radio, she speaks on the subject she claims to know best, Obama. The go-getter from the President’s hometown, Chicago, appears on most every television network.  The ascent of the man who now resides in the White House helped boost Sweet’s visibility.  Today, she is considered as she designed herself to be, an acknowledged expert on the President. As reported in The New York Observer,

When Andrea Mitchell introduced Lynn Sweet for her mid-afternoon show on MSNBC on May 16, she said, “Lynn Sweet is with the Chicago Sun-Times and has been covering him for years.”

That’s partially true. She has covered him for less than two [now near here] years. She has spent the majority of her other three decades covering any other number of political stories in Chicago.

Yet, the depth of her knowledge matters not.  Lynn Sweet has realized her dream.  She is the media and the message.  Since Barack Obama entered the scene, Sweet’s inquires have become the dominant news of the day.  

It matters not to Ms Sweet that each day, “If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance.”    She does not seem to think it exceedingly significant that “These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we’re having right now.”  What the President might wish to say seems meaningless to someone such as her.  She rather know what Barack Obama thinks about topics that might propel her career. It appears, fame and fortune is her mission..

Americans might assume that this Reporter is not interested in what affects the electorate most.  She made no reference to a reality that affects all Americans.  Near fifty million citizens have no health care coverage.   2.3 million more people lose health coverage each year.  The tale that might titillate, was Sweet’s temptation.  What was the President’s reaction to a story on race.

She did not address the disparate treatment whites receive. Nor did she find her way to  studies that show the ranks of the underinsured are on the rise.  The invincible Lynn Sweet had other ideas.  While countless worry that the cost of such a climb could be disastrous, the Columnist with a stated singular focus acted as though this might be superfluous.

For Ms Sweet it would appear that a moment of personal fame, or public fury, is her preference.  Health Care reform will not be a concern for her as long as she remains popular.  Perchance, the better word for what Lynn Sweet hopes to achieve is the term that currently defines her calling.  She is without doubt a provocative and profitable professional.

References for the raiser of public rancor . . .

A Rush to Judgment

Rush Limbaugh Hopes President Obama Fails

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Radio host, Rush Limbaugh recently reflected; Democrats rushed to judge him.  Those on the “Left” did not accept that they got it wrong.  Rush Limbaugh, fervent broadcaster who speaks of what is right, explained he did not say that he hoped  Barack Obama fails, although the transcript of his January 16, 2009 rant sits prominently on his website.  Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.

America’s Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy, professes his intent was to speak to the Democratic agenda.  However, millions, the magnitude that is the Rush Limbaugh audience heard the words.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down.  And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.  Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.  I don’t want this to work.  So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, awestruck, asked Americans to assess for themselves.  What did Rush Limbaugh say?  How might the nation address a Rush to Judgment

If you wish to speak out, express yourself, as I chose to do, please sign the petition.

Submit a comment if you wish to.  I share the thought I put forward.

Dearest Mister Limbaugh . . .

If “he” [Barack Obama] fails, America fails!  Please recall the proclamation of a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln; “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Mister Limbaugh, please ponder the declaration attributed to our forefathers.  “United we stand.  Divided we fall and fail.”

In accordance with our ancestors, propose, we, as a country will not be successful if we see ourselves as part of only one, our won, political Party.

Whether you meant to imply, you hope the Democrats fail, or truly intended as you stated, you hope he, President Obama, fails, either equates to the fall of the United States.

Please tell me.  How might anyone who loves this country, as you claim to do, explain such a wish?  I cannot

I cannot condemn a man or the way one wishes to resolve matters of consequence, simply for the sake of argument.  For me, a Party win will never be the priority.  My country tis of thee, we.  It is through our union that we understand why this is the sweet land of liberty . .  for all!

Oh Dear Rush, I hope you will reflect.  Perhaps, my response, and those of many more might move you to love this country, to work to improve conditions, no matter who the leader might be.

Rush realities and resources . . .

Press; Personality, Opinion, and Profits

Top Ten most ridiculous news stories

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Throughout America, the sun rises, sleepy souls awaken, and people turn to the media of choice.  Millions move towards the radio.  More power-up the television.  Countless persons do as their parents did before them; they pick up newspapers, which lie in wait on the porch.  People want to know what is the news across the nation, or at least they did just a short time ago.  Today, perhaps surprisingly, most forms of media have far less appeal than they had just a few years ago.  The ethnic press is still productive.  What Wall Street classifies as “hyper-localism” appeals to the masses.  It seems what survives and thrives in the press is personality and opinion.  Unadulterated accounts are not of interest to those who think them selves highly informed.

In survey after survey, Americans state they know their community and are very familiar with happenings in this country.  They watch television.  The public listens to the radio.  People in this country read.  Yet, indeed, the evidence demonstrates despite a wealth of information accessible to most, if not all, citizens of this country grow increasingly ignorant, unaware of more than what a popular program or a chosen channel wishes to air.  No matter the age of the audience, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Americans know far less now than they did in 1989.

In recent times, a Presidential Election, consumed the  constituency for near two years.  Yet, the electorate, who thought themselves actively engaged, actually knew less about politics than they had in decades past.

Those who reside in the United States correctly speak of the incredible transformation; however, they do not wish to acknowledge Americans have been dumbed down.  Sure, people may posit their neighbors are not as bright, but let no one question the quality of the facts the more fluid are familiar with.

Let us suppose, by some freak accident, change truly came to America.  Would the public comprehend the climatic arrival of transformation?  Might the people imagine the impossible had occurred.  Would anyone in this country be the wiser?  Probably not.  There is reason to believe people would continue to be inspired by the trivial, the trite, the trials, and tribulations of a temptress, the taunts, all that can be seen in seconds on television, in a YouTube video, or on a social network site.  The information revolution has not altered affairs, at least not for the better.

In the last half century, the Information Age has given birth to greater conformity.  There are seemingly more options, and in actuality, fewer.  Five-hundred cable or satellite channels translates to the abandonment of an honorable agreement ‘in exchange for serving the “public interest,” TV stations get to use the airwaves for free.  

Currently, that creed is but a dream lost to the six major corporations, General Electric, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, CBS, and Viacom, serve as town criers.  These organizations persuade, propose, pontificate, and profess to be without bias.  Rarely do the reports attempt to be objective or reflective.  

Why should these private, for profit industries report what may be most relevant to people who trust the press to inform when sex sells.  Scandal sweetens the pot, or return on revenue.  Smut can be spun, and it is always time for silly season.

American audiences, people of every age love what bring the broadcast business lots of loot.  People are happy to absorb all the “news” transmitted by these radio and television stations.  Citizens in this country seek entertainment, forms of escapes, and enthusiastically  entrepreneurs furnish the fun.  Media moguls call what titillates profound and the people buy the bull.

For the most part, the public is generally satisfied with the press.  Most believe that the word they receive is fair and balanced or at least a reliable source of information.  In 2008, stories of Sarah sizzled.  Paris was a plus in the dull day of an average American.  Lindsay looked good and then she appeared to be less lovely.  Barrackamania was a beautiful distraction.  The now President Elect proved to be the change America could believe in.  However, as the country settles into a time of transition, some wonder what will they do for excitement.

A few murmur; might change have come and then left.  Citizens, spectators, the American audience awaits the next trend.  What will be the talk.  They tune in, turn on, and hope talk radio, television, or the technological wonder known as a computer will bring the latest American Dream.

More and more, those anxious to consume the news, check out celebrity hype.  People search for the stars.  They soak up any and all information online.  Too much technology is never enough.  To few reliable references; well, typically that goes unnoticed.

Print is still thought profound, although there is less of it to be found.  No matter the medium, the message is massaged and the words are probably, the product of a merger.  One paper is as another.  Each network is owned and operated by the very few persons who prosper from an ill-informed public.  Knowingly or not, most Americans turn to familiar forms in search.

People peruse the titles prominently known papers produce online.  They read blogger rants that reference mainstream media sources.  Indeed, well over 1 in 4 Internet users in the United States blissfully log into AOL Time-Warner accounts.  The world’s largest media corporation controls one fourth of media dissemination in cyberspace.  While that may all be well and good, if the news were hard, and the audience hearty.  Neither seems to be the case.  Today, Americans view reality television, car chases, crash, or trash.  Tune it in.  In America, the people say turn it on, morning noon, and night.

In the competitive world of commercialism, in-depth, quality news coverage, has not survived.  In a 2001 study, executed by the Joan Shorenstein, of the Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, dramatic changes in what was once critical journalism are documented.  Did anyone notice?  Was this topic covered on the news?

Soft news (that is, news that is typically more sensational, more personality-centered, more entertainment oriented, and more incident-based than traditional public affairs news) has increased sharply in the past two decades.  News stories that have no public policy component have increased from less than 35% of all stories in 1980 to roughly 50% today.  In the early 1980s, about 25% of news, stories had a moderate to high level of sensationalism; today, nearly 40% of news stories have this feature.??

Critical news (that is, news about the failings of leaders, institutions, and policies) has risen steadily in recent decades.  Negative coverage of presidential candidates is an example.  In 1960, about 25% of the evaluative coverage of candidates was negative in tone.  In the past three presidential elections, more than 50% of the coverage has been negative

Negative or nonsense; that may be the truer assessment.  The press pretends to enlighten; yet, for the most part it seeks to entertain.  Few realize the folly of what has become the American way.  In this country, the average Joe or Jayne consumes junk food and junk news.  

In recent months, change was the theme.  The issues of import during this recent election were those most frequently covered.  Each day Americans awoke to eat it up. . . the goodies, the gossip, and what makes the public grunt.

10. Hillary Clinton citing Obama’s Kindergarten essay titled, “I Want To Become President”

9. Mike Huckabee’s ongoing “buddy cop movie” with Chuck Norris

8. Obama Girl

7. Paris Hilton for President

6. “Terrorist Fist Jab”

5. Hillary Clinton’s drinking beers and taking shots of Crown Royal

4. Barack Obama bowling, or, “The Altoona Massacre”

3. Wardrobe-Gate: Sarah Palin’s $150K (or more) clothing caper

2. Joe the Plumber

1. “Lipstick On A Pig”

In 2008, the electorate considered the profundity of these topics and then selected a President, or perhaps, the mainstream media conglomerates chose for them.  Few knew more than what was delivered through airwaves, more than what was mentioned in print, more than the prominent six companies that comprise the press wanted them to know.  Hence, Americans must wonder, if change were to come, would we the people read of the transformation, or might the possibility of a true revolution never be realized, or at least, it is likely not to be seen on a computer screen, heard on a radio, or watched on television.

Reliable Sources . . .

Associated Press: Accuracy in Reporting


copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert

What is black and white and read all over?  Associated Press reports written by the “respectable” albeit some would say disreputable Ron Fournier.  Few Journalists foment interest in this Presidential election in the way this whimsical writer does.  His prose is not dry.  Detachment does not define the Washington Bureau Chief.  Conventional standards, set by the information industry, might label this laudable lackey as less than logical.  For logic is rarely found in flaming rhetoric.  Fournier describes his approach as “accountability journalism” and “liberating . . . the truth,” as well it should be.

The employer of this esteemed Correspondent, is the much admired Associated Press.  The establishment is a formidable favorite in the news industry.  The company’s facts fascinate.  Its mission mesmerizes.  “The Associated Press is the backbone of the world’s information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats.  It is the largest and oldest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio, and video.  AP’s mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

Yet, the articles Mister Fournier submits have a factual flavor.  The zest and zing leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many, or at least those on the political Left.  His black type is not a savory chocolate.  The white behind the words is not a plain vanilla.  Some may call the work of Ron Fournier yellow journalism.  

Each essay Fournier inscribes favors a political Party, the Grand Old one.  Readers might review but a few captions and columns to gain a sense of the slant.  The title On Deadline: Obama walks arrogance line, captures the conceit of a candidate or a columnist haughty with the power to influence an attentive audience.  The text within the article enriches the essence of this tasty tidbit, which passes for “news.”

He’s bordering on arrogance.

The dictionary defines the word as an “offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.”  Obama may not be offensive or overbearing, but he can be a bit too cocky for his own good.

Might we wonder if Ron Fournier, the reporter can be a bit too overconfident?  Within this “objective” story the Journalist believes he can aptly assess the mettle of the man as evident in the essay Analysis: Obama a ‘Courageous Leader’?

Women are not exempt from scrutiny that is if the female is a Democrat.  Hillary’s Flight of Fancy, a discussion the former First Lady’s memory and actual experience in Bosnia, while newsworthy is unfairly ridiculed by this Associated Press reporter presumed to be committed to the organizations mission.  Again, the Associated Press pledges to provide reliable and objective reports that are accurate, balanced, and informed.

Thus, the question might be asked; is the Washington Bureau Chief a columnist or a correspondent.  Another headline might answer this query.  Sen. Hillary Clinton an Artful Dodger.  Journalist Fournier wonders in print; What does Clinton want?  A reader might contemplate what does Ron Fournier long for?  

A reader might accept that this reporter inquires as he informs.  An avid learner who looks for news could chime, such curiosity benefits the public, and well it might.  However, the presumed neutrality of Ron Fournier is not evident, his alliances are.

Associated Press  reporter Ron Fournier, in his missives, supports a Presidential aspirant, John McCain.  The maverick McCain is equally enamored with the veteran political reporter.  Indeed, the Senator was a suitor of the correspondent.  Perchance, the Arizona Senator saw the prosaic phrase Mister Fournier inscribed in a mail to Karl Rove, “Keep up the fight,” and he knew.  Ron the Republican could and would fight or write for him too.  Perhaps, he does, although he is paid by the Associated Press.

Hence, with such a respected and widely read source to spread the word, the articles offered by Ron Fournier pass for objectivity.  A credulous citizen may not suspect a seemingly credible Correspondent.  A reader of any of the many prestigious periodicals that carry AP stories may be unaware of the connections this columnist has with those on Capitol Hill.  The people can only muse of the media, the power of the message, and the messenger, and perhaps they must for  . . .  

Fournier Is At It Again

By Steve Benen

CBS News

(Political Animal) – Fournier Is At It Again  . . . The latest piece from Ron Fournier, the AP’s Washington bureau chief and the man responsible for directing the wire service’s coverage of the presidential campaign, on Joe Biden joining the Democratic ticket, is drawing a fair amount of attention this morning. More importantly, McCain campaign staffers are pushing it fairly aggressively to other reporters, in large part because it mirrors the Republican line with minimal variation.

By choosing Biden, Fournier argues, Barack Obama is showing a “lack of confidence,” and is siding with “the status quo.”

If, such slander, or the source, evokes exasperation, readers of what is printed in black and white by the Associated Press and read all over, may wish to react.  Articles, which appear in most every paper worldwide, may wish to communicate such distress to Executives at local or national newspapers.  Readers may wish to write  letters to the editor such as . . .

Dearest Editor . . .

I write of what troubles me.  Associated Press correspondent Ron Fournier weaves quite a tale as he tells readers what to think of elections and candidates.  His essays are as rumors, rants, or a rage against anyone in the Democratic Party.  Readers such as I seek more than tantrums.  We yearn for quality accounts.  I, personally, do not appreciate diatribes.

The most recent invective was “Biden pick shows lack of confidence.”  The text screamed its skewed vision.  “The candidate of change went with the status quo . . . Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness -inexperience . .  The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative . . .”

Surprised by such barbs, I studied the author.  I learned, scorching satire could be expected.  Apparently, Ron Fournier spoke with the McCain campaign of his being a senior Political Adviser in 2007.  While one malicious missive might be excused, a slew of such essays offer ample cause for concern.

Mister Fournier words are frequently more Republican than reasoned.  The “journalist” writes . . .

“Poor Hillary.  After trying to save her sinking candidacy with awkward turns of flattery and sarcasm, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton resorted to a new tactic in Tuesday night’s debate: self-pity.”

Editors, such statements do not reflect fair and accurate reports.  Please tell those at the Associated Press, the recent reports penned by this wire service reporter, Ron Fournier, lack objectivity.  Your readers want no more tirades; we long for impartial accounts.

Betsy L. Angert


Possibly, if readers write the Associated Press will be reminded; periodical readers seek enlightenment in black and white text.  A newspaper is read all over for it resonates as reasoned.  Those who love current affairs do not wish to have the truth obscured.  They read for fact not fiction.  If the people write, newspaper Editors flooded with fervent letters may feel the wrath of citizens eager for ingenuous information.  Perhaps, the Associated Press will come to understand, the people are unwilling to be silent or consent to a commentary flavored by the reporters bias.

Readers of rhetoric that obfuscates all but a Republican perspective, please speak.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

~ Martin Luther King Junior

References for readers . . .

The World Can’t Wait; Billy O’Reilly Can ©

Please view the video, “Bill O’Reilly gets crazy.”

“Deescalate, Investigate; Troops Home Now!”

Speaking with vigor and revulsion on the O’Reilly Factor, Sunsara Taylor, of The World Can’t Wait, confronts the fact that even the Democrats refuse to stand up to our Emperor, George W. Bush.  The Democrats have expressed they will not do as they claimed they would.  Members of Congress are declining the task they were elected to perform.  They will not work for the people, the majority of which oppose our occupation in Iraq.

Democrats, the new members and those incumbents that remain in office, are not calling for an immediate withdrawal in Iraq, though they campaigned saying they would!  They are only willing to fight against further escalation.

Ms. Taylor, a member of World Can’t Wait’s advisory board and writer for Revolution newspaper, declares, “The United States is involved in a criminal war in Iraq.  It [the war] has been codified into place.  [we have an] institutionalization of torture . . . these are war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Sunsara Taylor reminds Bill O’Reilly that Americans do not want this war fought in their names.  Taylor mentions the midterm election to support her contention.  She explains the majority of the American people disagree with George W. Bush and they do not back this illegal war. 

O’Reilly disputes that  charge.  He apparently believes the change in Congress is separate from the issue of war in Iraq.  Taylor rejects that notion; perhaps she thinks the idea is silly, though she does not offer barbarous statements in retort as O’Reilly rants.

Bill O’Reilly, in all his glory sits barely composed as Ms. Taylor notes that American citizens do not wish to be complicit in this combative exchange.  O’Reilly gathers his wits only long enough to tell Sunsara Taylor she is an idiot.

The etiquette of this act demonstrates the wisdom of an aggressor.  For those that believe in battle, hand-to-hand or gun-to-gun, their way with words is as their mindset.  Mister O’Reilly as many neoconservatives do defines a massacre as a win.  When he has the opportunity to inform the public, he chooses insults instead.

Can the World Wait?  Can You . . .

  • “Bill O’Reilly gets crazy.”  YouTube.
  • The World Can’t Wait
  • Sunsara Taylor, on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” The World Can’t Wait. January 4, 2007

    Technorati Tags

  • tags technorati : Sunsara Taylor, George W. Bush, O’Reilly Factor, World Can’t Wait, War Crimes, Bill O’Reilly
  • Rush-To-Judgment Limbaugh is Liberated ©

    This week Rush Limbaugh taught me much or more accurately reminded me of what I already too all too well.  When communities [countries, neighborhoods, or a domestic liaison] are built on a foundation of fear, what will we reap?  Each of us entered this world full of love and hope.  Every baby, all newborns are a bundle of love.  We, as elders, cuddle and coo with delight as we watch infants explore.  We say we wish to encourage curiosity and the desire to learn.  Yet, we are torn.  Limbaugh was; now he is liberated!

    As a society, within families, as parents, teachers, and administrators we are told what is “appropriate,” “responsible,” or “proper.”  We experience what will happen if we question this conventional wisdom.  Thus, when teaching our young we, as a “community” do everything to quell what we individually, purport to honor.  We squeeze the life out of a young, open exploring mind.  We crush the dreams of our youth; we destroy opportunities for those that forget the “talking points.”  We do not encourage discovery.  We demand conformity.

    This practice becomes policy and is evident in every avenue of our lives.  Sadly, most of us accept it.  We adopt the standards society dictates.  We lose a sense of self and “carry the water” others claim we must.  Ahh, to be liberated, to be free, to know that we can grow without criticism, what might the world be if we could share our genuine beliefs, feel what is truly within us, be authentically as we are, and state what we truly think.  Rush Limbaugh might know.

    The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I’m going to tell you as plainly as I can why.  I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried.  Now, you might say, “Well, why have you been doing it?” Because the stakes are high.  Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

    Now I’m liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don’t deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don’t deserve it.  I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own.  But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing.  If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future — both in Congress and the administration — are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that’s liberating.  I don’t say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don’t mean to make this too personal.

    I’m not trying to tell you that this is about me.  I’m just answering questions that I’ve had from people about how I feel.

    Apparently, Rush Limbaugh felt beholding to his President or his party, perhaps, both.  Unlike the many before him Rush was not paid by the Administration to pontificate, it is just what Rush does best.  In an advertising campaign to promote the Limbaugh show years ago, this broadcaster announced, “You do not need to think.  I will tell you want to think”; and so Rush does.

    However, since Election Day, Mr. Limbaugh is singing a different tune.  What is a voter, a citizen to believe now?  Please tell us Rush.  On Wednesday, November 8, 2006, a defeated commentator concluded,

    There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves — and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.

    Then this politico stated the truth, reality set in, Rush relayed, “I’m a radio guy!” Exactly; yet, millions of Americans follow this leader religiously.  As Limbaugh observed.

    I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has.  I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don’t deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren’t able to, I’m not under that kind of pressure.  Am I making myself clear on this, Mr.  Snerdley?

    Radio announcer Rush Limbaugh is making himself very clear.  He does not wish to be confused or equated with the numerous others that were illegally paid to posture for this Administration or proposed Republic programs.  Limbaugh separates himself from sellouts such as, Armstrong Williams, a conservative “authority” asked to speak in favor of the Bush Education program, “No Child Left Behind.”  Mr. Limbaugh does not want the public to suppose that like the prominent journalist Williams did, Rush received $240,000 from the Administration or the Republican Party for his efforts.  He did not.

    Rush does not wish to be associated with, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, a professed authority on marriage and family issues.  This wondrous woman received two federal contracts totaling $41,500 for writing brochures, a magazine article, and a report each advising government employees to support of the president’s marriage initiative.

    Nor does radio host Limbaugh want to be linked to liars such as Mike McManus.  It was revealed that this correspondent also sold his soul; he was the third is a series.  “Mike McManus who writes a weekly column syndicated in 30 to 40 newspapers, said he was paid about $4,000 to train marriage mentors in 2003 and 2004.”  McManus was considered a subcontractor.  The Lewin Group, a healthcare policy research and management-consulting firm, bought his services.  McManus’ job was to support community-based programs “to form and sustain healthy marriages” and to speak in favor of the Bush marriage initiative.  McManus wrote of the program in several of his columns.  His own non-profit group, Marriage Savers, was also being paid $49,000 by an organization that received a Health and Human Services grant.  the purpose was to teach [Bush, religious right] principles to unwed couples that are having children.

    Mr. Limbaugh is not among those that betray their principles; he is an honorable man.

    No, I’m not lying.  Snerdley’s concerned.  I’ve not lied about anything I’ve said.  Let me try this a different way.  (sigh) I’m going to have to think about this.  I tried to make it as clear as I can.  I’m not going to eat my own, and I’m not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war — and I’m not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I’m not going to do it to stand out, and I’m not going to do it to be different.  I’m not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies.  I’m not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, “Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!” That’s not my thinking.

    Rush is an ethical man, a man on a mission.  He knows “right” from “wrong,” “left” from “right.”  Mr. Limbaugh, a “radio guy” is an expert on what would serve this country best.

    My thinking is: the left doesn’t deserve to win.  My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory.  We may not have the best people on our side, but they’re better than what we have on the left.  But it has been difficult sometimes, when these people on our side have not had the guts to stand up for themselves, have not had the guts to explain what they really believe and why they’re doing what they’re doing.  When they haven’t had the courage to be who they are, when they haven’t had the courage to be conservatives.

    It has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them and make sure that the opportunities are not totally lost.  But at some point, you have to say, “I’m not them, and I can’t assume the responsibility for their success.  It isn’t my job to make them succeed.  It isn’t my job to make elected Republicans look good if they can’t do it themselves.  It’s not my job to make them understandable and understood if they can’t do it themselves — not in perpetuity, not ad infinitum.”  So all I can tell you is I feel a little liberated, and I think this is all going to result in a lot of cleansing in a number of areas.

    Yes, Rush you are the man, the water bearer not free.  Mr. Limbaugh I applaud your awareness and desire to take responsibility.  However, I am fascinated by your delay.  If the ties that bound you were of your own making, why did you not release yourself from these shackles sooner?  I wonder, how can we, the public trust you now [not as though I ever did.]

    I wonder what might your fellow journalists say of your revelation, and of you as a credible news source. Keith Obermann offered a wink and a nod.  Please view, “Rush Limbaugh Feels Liberated.”

    What might a former avid listener say?  Harvard graduate student, writer, and a former Limbaugh follower Valarie Kaur writes of her personal experience of the broadcaster.  She speaks of how her Dad was once a fan and now, can no longer tolerate a man that

    has called the torture at Abu Ghraib no different from what happens at a college initiation. He has compared it to a Britney Spears concert. And he has defended it by saying that the soldiers involved needed emotional release.

    Ms. Kaur, after appearing in a play addressing the Abu Ghraib prison incidents was ridiculed by the Rush-to-judgment announcer.  She writes, “Rush accused me and other Harvard students of hating America because we put on a play about Abu Ghraib.  Not only did he reveal his profound moral ignorance, he lost a man who used to be his biggest fan — my dad.”

    Valarie Kaur adds, Mr. Limbaugh admits, he did not attend a performance; she is happy to extend an invitation to him.  Perhaps, each of us might invite Mr. Limbaugh to attend.  Would we, as a nation not welcome his awareness, his attention to details.  Mr. Limbaugh, if you not trust your own words, if you are speaking out because you think you should, and not because you believe in a Congress and this Administration, if you are merely conforming to the standards of others, please stop yourself.  Explore.  Be free and liberate us all!

    References for your review . . .

    Conservative Columnist David Brooks Publicly Bashes Bush ©

    0923_sb_db2  It was a Friday evening, September 23, 2005.  The program was Public Broadcasting Services New Hour; Jim Lehrer was the host. The topic was Katrina.  What was the cost of the storm, and what of the monies President George W. Bush promised for rebuilding?

    Jim Lehrer introduced the subject by saying that reports reveal the “conservatives are upset;” they do not think the Bush proposals are wise. Lehrer posed the question, what do Republicans intend to do with their frustrations?  Lehrer turned to conservative syndicated columnist David Brooks for the answer.

    Brooks, in an honest moment, muttered the words, “George Bush has spent money at a faster clip than Lyndon Johnson.”  Hearing this utterance from David Brooks was so shocking to newscaster Lehrer, he was visibly taken aback.  Mr. Lehrer said, with a noticeable lilt in his voice, “Say that again.”

    Brooks rapidly replied, “Domestic discretionary spending, non-defense spending, non-homeland security spending has increased.”  He added, spending “has increased under George W. Bush twice as fast as under Bill Clinton, and faster than under Lyndon Baines Johnson.”

    Brooks continued, “Conservatives didn’t expect that in 2000. I guarantee you that. A lot of it is, frankly, the Republican Congress’s fault.”

    Wow!  A registered right-winger is saying that the Republicans are at fault. What happened to “eleventh commandment” as voiced by super President Ronald Reagan?  I thought that conservatives were never supposed to criticize members of their own party.  Yet, it occurred, here on television. Anyone or everyone could be watching!  What will party loyalists think, say, or do?  Granted, the increasing debt and the constant spending troubles many.  Yet, to speak of it aloud and publicly, this was quite a feat.

    New York Times writer David Brooks persisted, “If you look back, when we look back on this period, we are going to look at a Congress that came [in] preaching limited government, but just has gone hog-wild in spending.”

    Tis true. Nonetheless, who would have expected to hear these words from this well-known conservative columnist?  Brooks reflected further saying, we have “a president who never disciplined members of his own party to restrain themselves.”  Mr. Brooks proclaimed, “There’s just a lot of built-up anger . . .

    It was a glorious moment.  Though Brooks went on to propose standard Republican policies, this moment will forever be etched in time, in my memory, and I wanted to share it with you.

    Please read, A Bushian Laboratory, By David Brooks