As you already know, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Bill is close to my heart. (Yesterday, I chose to read the Congressional Record in order to see what the stated opposition to the bill was. Other than the tax on foreign companies, there was concern that money would go to illegal immigrants. Of course, I took exception to that. The heroes of 9/11 didn't ask the people they saved if they were legal or not; we should not do the same to them.) That is why I was concerned yesterday when I heard that the President will be staying on vacation in Hawaii until January 2nd.
Once a bill is passed by both Houses of Congress, the President has 10 days to sign, veto, or do nothing to the bill. If he does nothing, after 10 days, the bill automatically becomes a law. However, if a session of Congress expires before those 10 days expire and the President fails to take any action, the bill does not become law. This is called a "Pocket Veto."
The Zadroga Bill passed Congress on December 22. The 111th Congress expires at the beginning of the new year. Thus, I was concerned when and where the President would sign the bill.
Thankfully, this morning, I read this tweet by White House New Media Director (and one of my idols, in full disclosure) Macon Phillips:
@PressSec When will President Obama sign the Zadroga Bill (because he only has 7 days to do so and he's in Hawaii until 1/2/11)?less than a minute ago via webSeamus Campbell
SeamusCampbell
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded:
Why does the American public have selective memory when it comes to party affiliation. Republicans like to mock President Obama using a the TelePrompTer and stuttering and stumbling his words when he is not -in essence, saying that he cannot create an original thought on his own. That's fair. However, wasn't that the case as well with President Bush by liberal rivals?
I sympathize with President Obama and President Bush. Not to make any accusations, but I myself have a speech impediment. Anyone who has ever seen me in class or personal discussion knows that I stumble over my words. I take pauses looking for words, I use interjecting phrases like "umm." I am not a good public speaker. I am, however, a rather good writer. I know the point I am trying to make. However, I jump back and forth from thought to thought and, in the end, clean it up so it all flows together. (This, among many reasons, is why I am not a good debater, or, for that matter, interviewee - as was the case a few years ago when I was questioned by a Newsday reporter about a dredging project in my town.) Right now, this is my 2nd paragraph; I have the first two sentences of what will likely be my 3rd paragraph already in place.
What we see on CNN, of course, is not the full interview. It is 8 seconds! How much of a cohesive, coherent, and concise argument can you make in in, say, 2 or three sentences? For that matter, how fast can you contemplate an argument/response that will fit into that 8 second time frame that will leave a lasting impact on the audience that will not be lost in the shuffle of the day's news cycle? It is a skill that I, for one, have yet to have mastered. When you give a speech, you want something that focuses on your directed audience, but still is quotable in a larger context. How often have we seen quotes taken out of context hurt politicians? Each sentence has to, in itself, be independent of all of the others, but still work together when combined.
(Think of my reasoning like this: the speaker is a squad leader in the Army; each sentence is a soldier in the squad; you, as the squad leader expect from you troops that they work well independently and as a group.)
Okay, maybe using a TelePrompTer versus some paper was a poor choice when speaking to school children, but, honestly, when you insult someone for not being a good public speaker, try to consider how hard creating political soundbites can be.
Okay. Scott Brown won. He won fair and square. He has taken the seat that was once held by John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy will be taken up by a Republican.
On November 4, 2008, I saw friends writing "America is doomed" and "I'm moving to <fill in country>." I really cannot stand sore winners or sore losers. In regards to this, I wrote a Facebook note, calling their bluff. They thought the country would die under Obama and wanted to leave; I told them "bye-bye." I knew they wouldn't leave. Eight years prior, Democrats said the same thing about a Bush-Cheney win; and, yet, the country has survived.
This evening, I have seen tweets showing the other side of the coin that I hate: sore winners. I have seen people saying "Obama fail" "Suck it <fill in Democratic politician>." Some tweets have actually been directed at yours truly.
He won. For all of my efforts (and those of countless others), Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley. He did it, I admit.
However, I am reminded of the closing scene of Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir Loving History. She went through Inauguration Day 2001 and how, one of the things she admired most about this nation. I do too. Over a year ago, Americans wanted a change in direction, so they elected Obama; now, they didn't like what has happened and wanted a reform. The voice of the American public is a voice to be rekoned with. If they don't like the direction of the nation, they make a change in however they can. They change mayors. They change state legislators. They change congressmen. They change presidents. They make a change. And that was what they did.
To my friends who supported Scott Brown, I commend you. You guys ran a fantastic campaign. You went from 20 points below to winning by 6-7 points.
One election, though, does not cause a 180-degree shift in policy in the nation. Look at what happened in President Obama's first 100 days (when he did NOT have 60 votes in the Senate): we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, re-authorization of SCHIP (paid for by an increased tax on cigarettes), hate crimes now include sexual orientation/gender/gender identity/disability, HIV/AIDS is no longer a reason to exclude immigrants, and expanded AmeriCorps.
Yet, to those Brown-supporting friends, please do not say that all of the changes that were requested in 2008 are over. Yes, the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, but are those 8 senators suddenly chopped liver? No. There is still plenty of bipartisan legislation that can be passed. And, if anyone has been following my tweets, according to Massachusetts election law, they cannot certify an election until at least 10 (if not 15) days after an election (see http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_massachusetts_doesnt_matter. So, there are 1-2 weeks for health care reform to be passed.
As I type, I am watching one of my favorite West Wing episodes, "2162 Votes." The final line of the episode is said by Republican Presidential Nominee Sen. Arnold Vinick (CA), after the end of the Democratic National Convention, "Okay, let's go win this thing."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that the 'conference committee' was "95% done" with hashing out the House and Senate bills on health care reform. We have a maximum of 15 days to pass this thing without any political controversy. Therefore, Okay, let's go pass this thing.
But, after Sen.-elect Brown is sworn in, I pray that he will be there, putting in his 2 cents, and assisting in making strong, bipartisan legislation for which his predecessor was infamous.
I had an interesting conversation with a Republican friend today. He mentioned about how President Obama has the lowest approval rating for the first year of a presidency in American history. I thought for a moment and came to an epiphany on why this is.
It has been said that a President can only achieve his/her goals in the first 100 days. For the next 8 months, if the agenda runs over, poll numbers begin to fall. After the first year of a presidency, 435 members of congress and 33 senators are running for re-election. Voters have a short-term memory (unless there is a major scandal). If the elected official in question has gone on the record with a controversial vote, he/she may be toast. They have to appease their constituencies within those 11 months. The next two years are dicey depending on the outcome. But, whatever the case, since the President is the figurative and literal head of the party, if the party and/or the President mess something up, both take the heat.
Now, it goes without saying that the health care bill has been one of the most contentious issues in the past century. The President began to push health care reform in the late spring. It's January now. It has taken 6 months. The lack of efficiency led to less support (and its ability to, hence, fester) has caused Democratic members of Congress and the President to in polling numbers.
Though I am not an expert, it seems that since 'Rome wasn't built in a day,' the Democratic party has taken the heat in support.
I guess someone has to chime-in about the late Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy.
There is nothing that I can say that has not yet been said by any of the talking heads in the media about his life, career, strength, courage... well, you get the point.
Instead, I will tell you a story. One year ago yesterday, was the day I became a supporter of then-Senator Barack Obama. I can tell you exactly where I was: sitting in an over-sized chair that my family has dubbed "The Death Chair" in my living room in my summer house. My mother was sitting adjacent to me on the sofa. The two of us were watching the Democratic National Convention.
As many of you may know, I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter. After Sen. Obama received enough votes to be the Democratic nominee, I still was still weary to support him. I found the Senator to be inexperienced and disingenuous. Unless he chose then-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his running-mate (which I thought to be a winning ticket), I was planning on voting for Ralph Nader. I still had my qualms, however, even after then-Senator Joseph Biden was chosen to be the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee.
Being the good Democrat that I am, I watched the Convention religiously. I openly cheered when some of my favorite Senators, Congressmen, and Governors took the podium to give their two cents.
My mother and I were curious if Senator Kennedy would make an appearance at the Convention. The Convention was in Denver and he was undergoing treatment in Massachusetts. He was only diagnosed 2 months prior, there is no way he could make it out there, my mother and I thought.
Then, at around 9:15 PM EST, the announcer introduced Caroline Kennedy and we knew who was coming next: her Uncle Ted.
Regardless of all of the treatment he went through, he looked as healthy and as strong as ever. If I remember correctly, when Sen. Kennedy took the stage, I myself stood up and cheered in my living room.
It was at 9:33, when Sen. Kennedy said
For me this is a season of hope - new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few - new hope.
And this is the cause of my life - new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American - north, south, east, west, young, old - will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege!
We can meet these challenges with Barack Obama. Yes, we can, and finally, yes, we will!
Barack Obama will close the book on the old politics of race and gender and group against group and straight against gay.
Within those two minutes, in which he said those four, short paragraphs, I became a supporter of Barack Obama for President of the United States. Senator Edward Kennedy, a man I, in many ways, idolized, told me that two of the most important issues for me -universal health care and gay rights- would be accomplished under an Obama presidency. I told myself that if Senator Kennedy, someone with whom I shared a dream for America, knew that this was the right person for the job of President of the United States, then he was my nominee.
At 9:34 P.M. EST on August 25, 2008, I re-united with my party in a nominee for President.
Within the next few days, my mother (who was planning on writing-in Senator Clinton) joined the Obama band-wagon; and, a few days after that, my (paleo-conservative) Republican father (a McCain supporter) moved to be a supporter of Senator Obama (though the initial spark for the change in his vote was due to a certain unqualified Vice Presidential nominee that shall remain anonymous). For the next two months until the election, my family, with each passing day, became more and more supportive of the Democratic Nominee for President. On November 4, 2008, I was watching the returns with my parents. The number of states with votes "too close to call" grew ever larger. It was around 10:30 PM that my parents went to bed. I had work the next day, but had no obligation to a time-frame when which to arrive. I budgeted myself until 1 AM to stay awake.
I figured that the returns would go on until 1 in the morning. So, I put on a television show that I had recorded from earlier that evening - 90210. (Yes, I watch 90210. I have a thing for teen dramas -I don't know why- and the star -Shenae Grimes- is my celebrity crush.) I get about 10 minutes into the show, when at 11 PM, from the back of my ear, I hear the voice of Charlie Gibson originating from my parent's bedroom; "For the first time in American History, the country will have an African-American President." To say that I started screaming would be an understatement (I have little doubt that the three young children in the apartment next-door to mine woke-up).
When I heard the news that I helped change (in more ways than one) come to this nation, I felt overly proud (in a way that words will never describe). And, I, for one, owe that all to the late Senator Edward Kennedy.
With all the media attention they're getting (thanks, Lou Dobbs), the "birthers" do not seem to be going away - to the chagrin of reasonable Americans. I feel that the fact that a movement so nonsensical could gain a following in our country is quite depressing. The desire to oust a Democratic President driven on changing America for the better is driving some to make some outrageous claims. The worst part of this whole debacle is that there are Republicans in Congress who have recently stated they're "not sure" if the President was born in Hawaii. Perhaps it is party politics, but more likely it is to appease the crazies they represent. There should always be strife and disagreement in politics, but such strife and disagreement must always be strongly based in reality.
We can only hope that the media will stop their incessant (though sometimes entertaining) coverage of these nitwits. To paraphrase Mr. Bill Maher, the "birther" controversy is "not a conflict between Democrats and Republicans. It is one between sentient beings and lizard people."
Oh, how this story seems to keep on playing endlessly. I just saw this video:
For those of you that have been living on a rock for the past two months, conservative Catholics are angry that President Obama is speaking at Notre Dame. Why? Because he is 'pro-abortion.' First off, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! Being pro-choice means that the decision is not up to you, but up to the decider. Morality is a personal thing (anyone that has ever read Kant would know that); I have personal morals that some people may not follow (like, how I make it my duty to always wish friends 'Happy Birthday' -something that not everyone can agree with or could follow). That duty can only be a moral if everyone can follow it. Well, on the issue of abortion, to begin this argument, only women can choose that.
Second off, these people that oppose Obama speaking never seemed to have a problem with conservative speakers that are -if you weigh it- more opposed to Catholic Social Teaching. (I am working on a more extensive blog post on that very topic, which is forthcoming.) The argument is that since Obama is pro-choice he is opposed to fundamental Catholic beliefs. Maybe one, but other issues are just as heavily weighted. Health care, environment, anti-war labor, death penalty, and poverty -all of these are necessary to be consistently pro-life. So, Obama who is wrong on one issue suddenly has more moral baggage than Newt Gingrich (whom spoke at Fordham University last month) whom is wrong on all of the other ones? Why is one life suddenly more precious than another? All of those issues are necessary to sustain life, why does one trump them all? A friend of mine once said "conservatives care about babies up until the point they are born." I will not go so far as to say that, but when I look at the hypocrisy of all of this, I cannot help but feel that he is right.
The radical liberal would say that President Bush is just as wrong as Obama on the life issue because of the War in Iraq. I do not know what to make of that (to make a poor pun, such a weighing is 'above my paygrade'). I doubt that if President Bush spoke at a Catholic University, the Cardinal Newman Society would make it an issue (they certainly did not for Newt).
I will be honest, at face value, I am not consistent on my views on Catholic Social Teaching, but I look at the issues on a more philosophical level that makes the issue more complex -but that explanation is for another time (I blame my Jesuit education).
Right now I am watching Anderson Cooper 360 (instead of writing a paper). Dr. Sanjay Gupta is discussing the case of the partial face transplant at the Cleavland Clinic this past December. I ask myself why he declined Obama's offer to be Surgeon General. I know that he wanted to be able to keep working with his patients. But, how many patients can he have close ties with if he is a neurosurgeon and a CNN contributor? Neurosurgies can take hours, but he still does his reports. I guess it is true that you sleep less when you get older.
I begin to think how Kal Penn is now working for the Obama Administration. Two seemingly celebrity-types were approached to work for the President. Certainly, my counterparts on the other side of the aisle will say that this is more proof that he is more of a celebrity than a President. But are the two that different?
Presidents walk red carpets, don't they? Presidents are approached for autographs and photos, right? Presidents have name-recognition, yeah? A celebrity is nothing more than someone that is widely popular. So why not use other 'celebrities' to spread your message? Most celebrity-run political movements have several celebrities and few (if any) politicos.
Choosing Gupta and Penn was one of the smartest moves by the President. Why? "Medium is the Message." Every time I think of that Marshall McLuhan quote, I realize how brilliant the father of Media Studies was. I am a believer that Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan are so idolized is that they were first actors. Actors are trained in how to appeal to a certain audience and hone the message that way. The medium -the actor's craft- is the message -the idea or proposition trying to be conveyed. You never see a public speaker say a bold proposition as a first point. It is always the last. The effective speaker begins on a universally accepted proposition and will slowly flow into the proposition. If you do not believe me, watch the 2003 State of the Union; President Bush started on much more 'compassionate' conservative themes that democrats could agree upon and, eventually, highlighted a plan for war in Iraq. His speechwriters were brilliant.
Why not choose celebrities (even if they are b-list) to work for your administration? They, in theory, know how to shape the message so people will get what message is trying to be conveyed. Of course, you do not want to mention what is hot-button issue in one state, but will in a state that is cooler on the issue. Celebrities, from my experience, know how to give concise question answers in some media (like television) and more thought-provoking answers in others (like magazines). One must realize who the target audience is when shaping a message to communicate. Celebrities, likely, know who follow them (like strong women follow Oprah and teeny-boppers follow the Jonas Brothers), so if a celebrity says "I support this candidate because [issue followers coincide with celebrity]," the follower will listen. While typing that last sentence, I wonder if Obama would have done so well if Oprah had not enforced him; since all of time is based on cause and effect, I will never know. Kal Penn certainly knows that stoner-film and medical drama lovers will listen to what Obama, through him, says. I am also sure that Sanjay Gupta would have the same scenario with people that care enough about current events, but do not care to watch C-SPAN all day out of quickly-induced boredom (like me). Using the proper communicator, people will listen.
Obama was smart in implementing new media in spreading his message. Young people aren't reading newspapers. They're online. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube -Obama used it. It was a genius move. When you want to research a topic, you don't go to a library and go into the card catalog (like our ancestors did), you go do a Google search. A quick search on Obama and an noun would (and still will) reap thousands (if not millions) of results. Chances are, the top hits would be from legitimate sources (including official websites). So, when people wanted to know how Barack Obama stood on an issue, the top hit would be a blog post or a video. I cannot speak for you all, but I read (and remember) almost every website I read (not necessiarly true for schoolwork, however) (which, can make me seem to be a creeper when I accidentally remember what someone posted on Facebook weeks prior -but that is a whole other issue).
I am not saying that the President is manipulative. I am sure that President Obama knows that millions of Americans agree with him on many issues. But, if those people do not know that he agrees with them, they will not vote for him. He is just, strategically, expanding his base.
You may be asking why I chose this title for this post. One of the things I am most proud of in my family's heritage is that my (now deceased) second-cousin was Jack Culkin, a man the New York Times dubbed the "Man that Invented Media Studies." Culkin was a protege and close friend of McLuhan. Some of my mother's fondest childhood memories was with Jack. Because of her passing on these stories, I have investigated and, hence, realized how much ourselves is shaped by the media. If I ever run for President, I will be sure to have bloggers and Hollywood-types working in my communications department.
If you have not heard of Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN), do yourself a favor and look her up. She is insane. The DCCC (a few days ago) launched a new page called "Bachman Watch," I suggest you look at it (read it after you see the Wikipedia page on her -don't lie, I know that it is your primary source for information on a topic).
Some of the things this woman has said and done and believes in include (I got these from a variety of sources that are just a Google search away):
Tried to ban Disney's Aladdin from elementary schools because it promotes witchcraft and paganism
The (conservative, "family values") Family Research Council is the "front lines of defense for the American people"
Opposition to trade schools and on-the-job training for workplace skills
Sarah Palin "easily has more qualifications than Senator Obama and Senator Biden put together if you look at Executive Experience [emphasis added] She has been in the Executive position for two years! . . . She is one sharp lady! . . . She has made tough decisions all across the scene. And, I think women all across America are going to love what they see in Sarah Palin; I was taken with her and I know a lot of American women will be. She's very strong, very tough, a committed, loving mother. But, she knows how to be a good executive and how to take on her own party and how to make thing happen. There is no reason why people won't understand this once they understand that people in Alaska -85% of people in Alaska [emphasis added] have a positive approval rating for Sarah Palin."
[James Carville says to Larry King that he is astounded that this is the best pick that the Republican Party could come up with. Bachman finds it offensive to women.] "There are a lot of competent American women. Sarah Palin easily is a competent woman. She's proved herself in business; she's proved herself in politics. She has come up from nowhere to be somebody. And, she is someone we can all be very proud of. She is one competent, tough cookie. People are going to love her." [James Carville tells her that he supported a woman -Hillary Clinton- for President.] "And, with that, I think a lot of American women are going to be delighted with Sarah Palin because she exudes competence in everything she has ever done. She has a very good record and should be proud to run on that record. McCain really hit it out of the park with this pick."
Insertion of Creationism to public school curriculum
Wants to ban all gay rights. Also, LGBT people have "sexual dysfunction" or "sexual identity disorders."
Opposes minimum wage increases
Opposes online poker
"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." (The last time was actually under Gerald Ford.)
Believes that Congress should be investigated for those with anti-American leanings
Said that once argued that she couldn't support the economic recovery act because America was 'running out of rich people'
If you all think a commentary is needed, I'll do one, but I think much of this speaks for itself.
This girl does not know what she is talking about.
Firstly, the President is not a celebrity. No one is a celebrity. Celebrity status comes from name recognition and prestige (mostly encouraged by the media -but that is a whole other discussion). So, the guy likes to go to the beach? Is that wrong? Is relaxing and having a good time suddenly a sign that someone is not fit to lead? He likes to play and watch basketball. I cannot name a single President that has not, in some way, not partaken in some sporting activities. The thing that I find funny is that this girl says that the President is not spending enough time working when the last republican president spent more time vacationing than working. If you look at the press releases, Obama is working during the day and relaxing at night. Wait, don't most normal people do that too? Jessica Simpson once called President George W. Bush "a normal guy," adding, "but he runs the country." Honestly, we must remember that all of our elected officials are humans and they have the same emotions, desires, and needs that each and every one of us has. So, to criticize a President for relaxing and having fun every now and then is saying that they must reject their humanity, which is just absurd.
The President himself did not sign-off on Air Force One flying by the Statue of Liberty (nor knew about it for that matter), his military liaison did. And, by all accounts, the President was 'furious' about what happened. (To be fair, NYPD and FDNY did know about it, but the public was not notified.) But what does police violence, if I may ask, have to do with this situation?
As for Guatanamo Bay, Obama had planned to close it since the campaign. In fact, John McCain said that he would close it as well. It was doomed no matter what.
As for signing bills, I am not sure if this girl knows the difference between a bill and an Executive Order. He has not signed that many bills (the biggest is the Stimulus Bill), but he has done a lot of Executive Orders (which can be overruled by Congress). If this young woman wants to change policy, why doesn't she just write to her representatives (or is that too hard)?
I guess this is another manifestation of how uninformed the American populous is.
Yesterday, Newt Gingrich said on ABC's This Week that he finds the story about the puppy Malia and Sasha Obama got (as promised by their father on election night) to be irrelevant. Those of you that have not heard, the new first dog named "Bo" was revealed to the public over the weekend. Even though it is not a political story, it is still relevant. It is a feel-good story. We have all heard enough about terrorism and the economy, why not a story on how the President kept the promise that he made to his kids as a change of pace. It was sweet of Senator Kennedy to give the dog to the Obamas. Though Newt may not be interested in the story, some people may find it interesting. Newt is out of power, so why do people find what he says to be relevant?
No, this is not a post about Rush Limbaugh wanting President Obama to fail. This is my inner nerd coming out (take that as a fair warning).
Tonight, we, the Fordham College Democrats are hosting Ari Melber of The Nation magazine and he will discuss the role of New Media in the new administration. Researching the White House Office of New Media, just a little while ago, I learned that the White House has added a blog. At exactly noon (and four minutes before Barack Obama took the Oath of Office, I may add), the entire site changed from listing President George W. Bush to President Barack Obama (along with a complete redesign). The first post on the blog, which was posted at the same time the new website went live, the first blog post was also written, authored by White House Director of New Media Macon Phillips.
Looking at the blog, I saw that they posted a link to the corresponding RSS feed. Looking at the code of the feed, I saw that it was not an RSS feed, but, instead, an Atom feed. Simply put, feeds are web pages that can be subscribed to like a email newsletter, without sending an email. The difference between RSS and Atom feeds is the coding behind them. RSS allows for people to create custom frameworks, but must stay within certain parameters (like putting HTML in the pages). However, Atom feeds are meant to be more like HTML web pages with the modularity that comes with them. People prefer RSS feeds because they have been around longer, allow for more customization, and is the programming choice for podcasting. The RSS/Atom format war is not a big problem since systems like Feedburner allow for converting one type of feed into another.
Well, I emailed the White House about it (no joke, I really emailed the White House about how they got the feed type's name wrong) and who I would contact about a job or internship in the White House Office of New Media (assuming that is the name). I will see how it comes out. What can I say? New media is my thing (hence, my title).
Getting back to the White House and new media, Obama's campaign and presidency thus far has been shaped by new media. As we have all heard, Obama loves his Blackberry. He goes on Facebook, Twitter, (and I assume), YouTube, and other social networking and web 2.0 -user-generated web content (like this blog)- sites. Guess who also goes on those sites? Young people (us). By appealing to the people where they roam, of course you will influence them and get them to vote for you. People no longer want phone calls, they want Facebook messages. New media is here to stay and the Obama Administration knows it, they have a Facebook, they have a Twitter, they have a YouTube, they have a blog. (Wait, come to think of it, we have all of that stuff as well.) They know that to get the message out, you need to be where your constituents are; in this case, in front of a screen.
These sites have sparked debates over privacy issues, but what is there to really be afraid of? Like with how President Obama has always shown himself, we should be what is referred to for nerds as a WYSIWYG (pronounced "wizzy wig") -What You See Is What You Get. By showing our true selves, not just in politics, but in business, and relationships, we can get better results. You say to your boss "we should have a company outing to boost employee morale," the boss will likely do it; but if enough people suggest it, chances are, the boss will do it. The problem is that we all hide behind a veil (or, in this case, a screen -not to say, necessarily, that it is a bad thing) and say it to everyone but the boss. The boss finds out and thinks you are insulting his leadership and fires you. Now, this may be a simplistic example, but look at the deeper meaning. The boss has should realize that this is who he has as employees, he chose them and they do the work. If he does not cater to him in some way, work will not be done.
In the same way, President Obama realizes that he needs the average American to work with him. Whether it be writing to one's senators and congressman, or signing up for a new program, or even to just pray for him. But to do that, he must 1) earn the person's trust and 2) listen to what the person wants in order to cater to him or her. By going on his Twitter every night (as he does) or his Facebook, or what have you, President Obama can see what the issue of the moment is to you and I.
New media has not reduced the level of personal contact, but widened it. The only difference between talking to someone face-to-face and sending him or her a text message is the level of intimacy (which can be a make or break for some interpersonal relationships, but that is a whole other issue entirely).
For some reason, I decided to watch Ann Coulter's CPAC speech. I just do not understand why the rallying cry of the conservatives is to attack liberals. Meanwhile, liberals' rallying cry is the issues that they believe in. Can't the conservatives do the same or are they just so self-conscious that they need to look better than the liberals when they do many more criminal activities (Newt, Delay, Larry Craig, need I say more?)?
Some of the things said by Coulter were:
Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are lap dogs to Obama (and what was Fox News to Bush?)
Jesus had more executive experience than Obama (what about Palin ruling over the Crystal Meth capitol of Alaska?)
Obama is Muslim (still with that?)
Democrats finally won an election in 2008 (what about 2006?)
Germans liked Obama and they have a good track record on choosing leaders (wow, that is really racist)
Obama has been compared to Lincoln and Reagan since there are no good democrats for him to be compared to (his policies have also been compared to FDR)
Carter is an example of how not to be President (what about Grant or Coolidge?)
Over history, Democrats' reputation goes down while Republicans' go up (trying to think of a rebound to that one, I have realized that history, depending on who does the storytelling, can be equal-opportunity in negative/positive views of people)
At CPAC last weekend, there was a universal hatred of President Obama's bailout/economic-stimulus plans, sparked by comments by Rush Limbaugh. They all fear that the nation will become socialist. Do they realize how wrong they are?
This is a temporary program. It is not meant to last
Technically speaking, the government has always been socialist - Congress cannot pass laws that benefit only one person, laws are meant to help the most amount of people.
Do they really think that the government wants to take over the banks? The only group that can do less with repossessed houses than the banks is the government.
We must do something. Iceland has gone down the tubes, do you want the same to happen to the United States. At least Obama is trying to do something. When Obama was coming up with the stimulus plan, he did ask for Republican input. A certain College Republican that shall go unnamed says that those Republicans are, in fact, RINOs. At least, they are doing something than just sitting back and watching the nation itself fail.
After this economic situation, what will the Rush complain about next? Gays in the military? FOCA? He doesn't seem to be complaining much about that right now.
Rush also believes that Obama's plans will end individual liberties. How many individual liberties were taken by President Bush (*cough* 4th Amendment *cough*)? That is what I thought. While writing this post, I have been watching ABC's World News Tonight. They discussed this very issue. Yesterday, both Republican Chairman Michael Steel and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA) have distanced themselves from Limbaugh. Rush, today, attacked them saying that they cannot say that they represent the Republican party if they do not share his ideals. Is he serious (or just back on his pain medications so he can go golfing)? Just as this blog (nor I) does not represent the views of the Democratic Party, I doubt that Rush Limbaugh represents the GOP. I would like Mr. Limbaugh to find another person in the United States that agrees with EVERY SINGLE ISSUE as him. The United States (nor any political party) represents the views of every member, but is a plurality of a set of common ideals.
I pray that all of these lovers of partisanship will learn that nothing works with partisanship, but coming together on issues that we do agree on.
