Sunday, June 19, 2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry, Secessionist?

I am curious about Republican Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Other than very favorable comments written of him and his state's phenomenal economic success in The Wall Street Journal, I really don't know much about him yet.

This morning Bill Burton, a former Obama media adviser, on FoxNews Sunday attempted to dampen interest by mentioning that Governor Perry wants Texas to secede from the US.

Hmm...I have a number of Liberal friends and I have heard this mentioned before when Perry's name came up. Talk of modern-day secession-ism would be a serious matter if the Left did not throw out as a political knock, like some gotcha' torn out of context from something else. As part of the oath of office as Governor of Texas, didn't Rick Perry swear to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States"? Has he been negligent?

The question might better be, which Constitution did Governor Perry swear to defend? The old Constitution that we worked with for over 200 years, or the New Constitution that mandates everyone to buy Government Health Care or prevents a company like Boeing Aircraft from setting up a manufacturing operation in whichever state it chooses?

Let's go one baby-step further. Right now there is a large and growing "off the books"economy. Cash only. No paperwork. Additionally, nearly half the country does not pay income tax. General Electric and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are two very different but notable examples. Haven't these Americans already seceded from the rest of the country?

As for other potential secessionists, keep your ears open as election 2012 approaches. We'll all hear this more than once: "My God! If Rick Perry (or Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, or Michele Bachmann, or Herman Cain, or Fill-In-The-Blank) wins the election I'm moving to Canada!" I actually know people who have said those very words prior to a couple different elections: the same people, ready to move every four years. Haven't they, to a degree, already left the country?

Friday, September 17, 2010

Five Saturdays

The difference between winning big on November 2nd and winning REALLY BIG could be decided by five Saturdays in October.

It is daily becoming more apparent that Republican candidates will unseat many Democrats. A lot of deadwood will get trimmed and a lot of toothless “Blue Dogs” will get kicked off the front porch of the Capitol Building where they’ve been dozing for the last couple years.

Most pollsters seem comfortable predicting that the Republicans are within range of picking up the 39 seats necessary to regain control of the House of Representatives. A retaking of the Senate is no longer out of the question. If you are a Republican this is a nice place to be in the middle of September.

But having a very good election year is not the same thing as having a Great election year.

A Great Election Victory will not be limited to a monotone of predicted easy wins in communities where voters have been “mad as hell” for months. It will include a lot of other victories that are won on the edges. There will be surprise pickups that weren’t supposed to happen. There will be “squeakers” in districts or states that are currently “leaning Democrat” or too close to call. These tough wins are what will put the frosting on the cake. But, it is going to take more than positive voter trends to win the marginal races.

Through a gift of happy Providence the calendar this October includes five Saturdays. Those five Saturdays can be put to good use by dedicated activists.

In election politics there is absolutely nothing that can match the effectiveness of personal one-on-one campaigning. It is the cornerstone of American politics. A volunteer who walks up the front steps and rings the bell of a perfect stranger, a fellow citizen, and in a few sentences explains his candidate’s cause and – this is important – ends by respectfully “asking for the vote” is much more effective than another TV ad or four-color mailing. Direct personal appeal can win over a surprising number of marginal voters who otherwise may have gone either way.

This kind of campaigning is work. It requires a basic level of physical conditioning. It also requires commitment. But if you can march in a rally, you can go door to door. The candidate who can count on a corps of effective working volunteers has depth and a “ground game” added to his or her campaign.

You’ll find there is no greater joy in campaigning than working for a cause you love and a candidate you believe in and helping them win. Yes, giving up a month of Saturdays is a tough decision to make, but look all of exercise and fresh air you’ll get, and consider all the great new friends you’ll be working with.

Here’s another thing. In much of the nation by mid or late October the weather has turned ugly. It can be rainy and cold. But, with the right frame of mind this can offer another fun aspect to campaigning. Under particularly bad conditions, for those with a certain impishness, there is great sport in going out while you know your opponents will be staying in. Your fingers numb and your feet damp, there is much enjoyment in letting the opposition discover that while they were cozy on the sofa you were out in the weather getting votes. The chill you feel outside is toasty-warm compared to the chill they feel on the inside while learning you are gaining ground on them. They may have millions in donations from some government employee’s union but you have the intensity and the will to win.

It is this intensity and will to win that turns marginal campaigns into winning campaigns. Informed, motivated people going door to door reaching persuadable voters one at a time makes many tough races winnable.

This year there are five Saturdays in October. They were put there for a reason. Make them count.

This essay was originally published in American Thinker
September 17, 2010

Monday, August 9, 2010

What We Don't Want Future Generations to Say

Future generations will judge us harshly. Let’s hope they don’t judge us for the wrong things.

Even though it looks like all governmental bodies involved have cleared the way for construction of the Cultural Center/Mosque near the site of the 9/11 terror attack a growing segment of the general public is still very much engaged in stopping the project.

According to a Fox News report today, August 9, 2010, resistance to the construction of Mosques is growing nation wide. Right now there are approximately 1,200 Mosques in the United States and plans are under way to increase that number to 1,800 in the near term. The Fox News cameras showed clips of sizable protests all across the country as Americans become increasingly alarmed.

Naturally, critics are characterizing this opposition as “religious intolerance”. And if we can agree that Islam is a religion and not just an extremely large “cult”, there may be a point to be made along those lines. Other people’s religious beliefs along a whole spectrum often seem cult-like to an outside observer. From the burning bush to the Resurrection, from no meat on Friday to no meat at all, from full-dunk baptism to just a splash…Most in this country believe the bill for any theological errors will come due soon enough. In the meantime, why make each other miserable arguing here on earth?

But, tolerance is not something we see in Islam. Pick up a newspaper almost any day; Bali, Mumbai, Lockerbie, Fort Hood. Today it was reported that ten international medical aid workers were lined up and shot in remote Afghanistan. No amount of politically correct happy talk can smooth that over.

Americans share a healthy suspicion of the Islamic community for a host of reasons, not the least is the 9/11 Attack and the video images of the Muslim world celebrating, dancing in the streets following it. Seeing no discernable effort of the Muslim community to rid their own faith of violent fanatics, is it any wonder that the American public’s “radar” is turned on and loaded with fresh batteries? And while none of us would like to be thought of as intolerant there is a prudent need for caution with regards to the spread of a belief system that has both declared and shown itself hostile to other religions and to the West.

So, rather than go round in a circle on the question of tolerance, let’s get to the point. Here is what we want to happen:

One hundred years from now we want the American people to look back and say of us, “The early 21st Century was truly a dark time. Many American citizens were rather silly in those days. They viewed the Muslim religion with skepticism and outright suspicion. They even went so far as to hinder the construction of hundreds of much-needed Mosques and cultural centers. Yet, in the face of all this intolerance, the good Muslim people themselves cleansed their faith of dangerous fanatics, renounced the violence of their traditional justice system, embraced their new culture in the West and became a model of tolerance and understanding.” That’s what we want future generations to say.

What we don’t want future generations to say, especially historians writing centuries from now, is something like this:

“The political leadership in America was every bit as weak and frivolous as their enemies suspected. This leadership was unsure of the value of their own culture. Preferring to avoid controversy at all cost, they were willing to look the other way and distract themselves with trivial matters. Public concerns were swept aside while the country was re-populated by residents who were openly hostile to the basic tenants of their Constitutional government. Once a tipping point was reached, the Old American Republic was no more and mankind sank, as Winston Churchill stated in 1940,

“into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

That is what we don’t want future generations to say.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

The Monument at Ground Zero

In Columbus, Ohio stands a statue dedicated to that city's namesake: the discoverer of America, Christopher Columbus.

Let's not quibble about whether a band of Vikings or an errant Chinese vessel reached the New World centuries earlier. Other than to quote the famous line "Yes, but when Columbus discovered America, it stayed discovered," that's beside the point.

In the late 1980s, I was photographing campaign commercials for Democratic candidates. One bright day, I was riding in a van with that day's candidate, his media consultant, a director, camera assistant, sound man, gaffer, and whoever else squeezed in. We were discussing particulars of our project when we turned a corner. There, in a grassy park, was the statue of Columbus. As we rolled past, gazing at it from the windows, one of our number offered a comment: "Christopher Columbus: a symbol of racism, sexism, genocide and oppression."

No one seemed to need clarification. He might as well have been talking about the weather. If you have spent any time at all around Leftist Democrats, you know that this remark was nothing out of the ordinary. Inside their comfort zone, or after they've had a couple glasses of wine, they are capable of making the most astonishing pronouncements and judgments, delivering them in the most unequivocal terms.

The Christopher Columbus remark lingered in the air for a moment, a couple heads nodded in agreement, and then talk returned to details of the job at hand.

That statement made an impression on me, however, and on occasion over the years, I have remembered it and considered it from various angles. It is certain that readers of this essay will find much to comment on regarding the peculiar mindset this anecdote exposes and the low opinion Democrats frequently express of the nation they seek to lead. It may even prompt readers to wonder whether some Democrats identify with America as a nation at all, wishing instead that the country had been settled by a better class of people. Again, this is not the point.

My point, rather, is this: Those who erected that statue intended the image of Columbus to reflect and honor the noble characteristics of Vision, Courage, and Resolve. They intended it to be viewed as symbol of the power of Right Idea and Inspired Enlightenment as a direct challenge to ignorance and superstition. And for quite a while, the statue of Columbus stood as a representation of those very things. But then we arrived at the era of postmodern Liberalism, and out of the classrooms and intellectual enclaves came political correctness, revisionist history, and the image of The Ugly American. Things changed, or were made to change. Immediately following World War II, there seemed to be a deep need in some to take a little of the shine off the U.S. The United States was no longer depicted as a beacon to mankind but as a plundering bully that needed to be cut down to size. To some in this country -- and every year, hordes of them come out of the woodwork around October 12 -- the image of Christopher Columbus was made to represent the exact opposite of Freedom, Enterprise, and the power of Mind.

Interesting, isn't it, how a monument erected to noble ideals can be remade instead into a symbol of "genocide and oppression"?

Let us now consider another monument, recently approved by state and local leaders to be built in lower Manhattan, a block from the hole in the ground known as "Ground Zero."

Less than nine years after the 9/11 attack -- the "Day America Will Never Forget" -- state and city officials in New York have cleared the way for a proposed fifteen-story mosque, or Islamic "culture center," just paces away from the hole. While nothing has yet been built on the actual site of Ground Zero, the mosque zipped through zoning and landmark hearings untouched by city and state bureaucrats and unscathed by citizen protests. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo were both early supporters of the project. Much of official media sees nothing wrong or disrespectful about it. Words like "insensitive", "tacky," and "in poor taste" have had no place in the conversation, nor have words like "vile" and "obscene." In the minds of our current officialdom, the issue is one of America's lack of religious freedom and tolerance -- and officialdom is all about tolerance of religion, don't you know.

Well, here is what that mosque will truly represent: To the American Left, this mosque represents a gooey dose of feel-good inclusiveness. It provides a platform for them to lecture and talk down to the public on the subject of America's perceived moral shortcomings while at the same time allowing them to act as enablers for a religion that happens to have many adherents who wish for the destruction of America. It's a win/win.

To Islamist fanatics, it will represent a victory over what they perceive as a corrupt and complacent America. To them, America is a "weak horse"; we can be had, and official approval of this mosque only nine years after the slaughter that took place at this location serves as living proof.

But to us regular citizens, living in the burroughs, across the Hudson, or out here in flyover country, driving our seven-year-old cars and happy to have our families together, that mosque represents the dangerous fecklessness of the Left. It is another symptom of timidity when common sense is called for. It is the disease of the Arizona border issue spread to New York City. That mosque will stand as a testament for every modern liberal who never missed a chance to call Ronald Reagan a "warmonger" but finds Islam a "religion of peace." Additionally, if actually built, it will be a testament to shortsighted Islamic overreach. Erected as a chip-on-the-shoulder challenge to the United States, it will sooner or later be knocked flat.

No one contemplating this building as they pass on their way to pay respects at Ground Zero will have to have lost loved ones that day to understand the meaning of that building. We all know that not just New York was attacked, but all of America. And we all will see this building as an insult to the three thousand people who were crushed or burned alive that September 11. This mosque, at fifteen stories tall, will memorialize two hundred souls per floor. And every brick, every stone will represent Progressive Liberalism's astonishing preference to defend everyone else's position, but not ours.

While we marveled at the implications of one Democrat's words on seeing a statue of Christopher Columbus, consider that same re-interpretative phenomenon magnified ten thousand times over as Americans contemplate this proposed monument at Ground Zero.

This essay was originally published in The American Thinker, August 7, 2010

Monday, August 2, 2010

Arizona and the Pottery Barn-rule

What happened last week to the Arizona illegal immigration law is a clear indication that in these serious times America has an un-serious President… as if we needed more proof.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has acquiesced to the Obama Administration’s pleading and issued an injunction preventing implementation of the Arizona law. What’s likely to happen next? To those who feel that Judge Bolton’s decision is a sure disaster I say, “Yes, it will be a disaster. But, let’s slow down and see if we can find a ‘bright side’ to any of this.” And, you know, there just may be. Barack Obama may have given the people of Arizona an insurance policy.

A few years ago regarding Iraq policy someone warned George W. Bush of the Pottery Barn-Rule; “You break it, you own it.”

By telling the people of Arizona, "Relax. I'll take care of it" the President has taken ownership of the illegal immigration issue and of all the collateral problems that result from it.

Okay, Mr. President, you’re in charge. From here on out, if anything breaks you get the bill. That includes shootings, kidnapping and headless bodies found in the desert.

Moving the official command and control center from Phoenix to Washington, DC, about as far away from Arizona as is possible to get, is not a confidence-builder. Arizona residents will not sleep better knowing that help is only 2,300 miles away and that it moves at the speed of the Federal bureaucracy.

The President does not seem to understand that because of his own Justice Department’s case and Judge Bolton’s ruling he is the one who will be receiving the likely "3:00am phone call". All of the crime and violence, the shootings and kidnapping are his problem now. While he can count on a continued news blackout on the part of the MSM, it is a safe bet that Fox News will continue to report (you decide) on the subject and to air hidden-camera footage of drug smugglers and human traffickers crossing the border at will.

It is not likely to be a pretty picture. It is inevitable that sooner or later the Obama Administration will get tangled up in some unpleasant border incident. When that happens the President will attempt to shift the blame and the people of Arizona and their police force will bear the cost. Our job will be to make sure that Obama is not able to shirk the responsibility he has taken with his District Court victory.

We were looking for a bright side to the story. That’s about as bright as it gets.

Simultaneously, there is a dark cloud that seems to have escaped much notice. The Republican Party also had a hand in Judge Bolton’s decision. All you Tea Party people take note.

In 2000 Judge Susan Bolton was nominated to the District Court by none other than President Bill Clinton. No surprises there. Problem is, US Senator John Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is the one who suggested her. Further, at that time the Republicans held a majority in the US Senate and Trent Lott was Majority Leader.

Fade Out – Fade In: Ten years later…

When Democrats needed a Judge to do them a favor they had one in the right place, and the Republicans put her there. This is what America gets as a result of Republican “collegiality” and going-along-to-get-along.

The purpose here is not to bang on John Kyl. He’s a pretty good Senator. But the Pottery Barn-rule applies to him, too, and to all of our elected officials. They have to know that they are accountable to us, not “Them”. We do not hold elections and send people to Washington to represent someone else’s interest. They are to represent our interests.

Keep the Arizona decision in mind when Elena Kagan’s name comes up for a vote.

To those reading this in Maine, Massachusetts, or South Carolina; now would be a good time to contact your Republican Senator. Remind them that if they break something, they bought it.

This essay was published August 2, 2010 on The American Thinker.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010


In the fall and early winter of 2008, former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was caught on a series of tapes attempting to sell the US Senate seat soon to be vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. It caused quite a sensation when the case broke in early December. The resultant early reports of involvement or complicity by top Obama people put quite a dent in the showroom finish of the new administration

For much of the nation the Blago case was their first lesson in how things are done in Illinois. Stunned voters didn't have to connect too many dots before they got a picture of what we would be seeing more of in the weeks and months to come. So much for “Hope and Change”.

A brief recap of the case offers a Who’s Who of Democratic politics. One of the bidders, allegedly, was Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. who had a platoon of fundraisers out trying to scratch together $6.5 Million. Convicted fixer and fraudster, Tony Rezko, the new President’s old pal and next door-neighbor was implicated. Also playing parts were key members of the Obama team; Rham Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, as well as Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. A local Union official, Tom Balanoff president of Local 1 of the SEIU, the union associated with ACORN, is alleged to have acted as a “cut-out” between the Obama team and Blago in the Governor’s mansion. There were bugs crawling around under every rock. All that was needed was a court case that would kick a few of them over.

Unfortunately, crack Federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, sprung the trap before money actually changed hands, which means the main crime, actually “selling” a Senate seat, technically was never committed,. Why he did not wait a day or two until he caught all concerned in the act has not been made satisfactorily clear. As a result of Fitzgerald's jumping of the gun, Federal Prosecutors had to base their case entirely on recordings of wire taps and testimony involving other crimes and cases of bribery, which, other than “guilt by association”, did not directly involve members of the Obama Administration

Still, the case against Rod Blagojevich seems not only rock solid, but sensationally so.

To an Illinois public accustomed to existing in a dirty political world, Blago was widely known to be running an exceptionally dirty operation. His administration was something special even by Illinois standards. On one of the tapes, when Children's Memorial Hospital balked at making the suggested $50,000 “donation”, Blago was heard to say “Screw those guys” -- and he held up State funding to the hospital. His brand of politics was not tiddly-winks.

However, Blago’s methods were not so far out of line that he had any problem getting reelected in 2006. Voters in the Land of Lincoln when given the choice between a crook or a Republican, no matter how Rino-like, can always find a reason to go with the Democrat. Look at the current Illinois Senate race between bland establishment Republican, Mark Kirk, and disgraced banker and failed State Treasurer, Alexi Giannoulias, Democrat. It’s neck and neck.

As the corruption trial heated up over the last year Blago was everywhere; making personal appearances, phoning in on talk shows, even at one point hosting his own weekend talker; and all the while professing his innocence and defiantly vowing to take the stand and name names. In fact, he regularly declared his eagerness to take the stand to tell his side of the story. He was only doing what everyone else in Illinois politics does, and he was not going to go to prison without naming names.

Naturally, people in Washington were nervous. Pile the Blago trial on top of the Gulf oil leak, the economy, unemployment, resentment over health care, and etc., all coming just before the mid-term elections, and you can picture the sleepless nights in the White House, in Georgetown, or in other enclaves of power.

It was clear from the start that the official media grasped the serious implications of just how badly it could go if things spun out of control. You see at work their instinct to soft-peddle the trial, which began in June, as a sordid, second-rate “page 3” story. The big reporters were not present at Chicago’ Federal Court Building. The breathless coverage, the interviews, the speculation were largely absent. Lindsay Lohan, LeBron James, even the President's current vacation plans, padded the news and helped squeeze coverage. The trial to proceed next-to unnoticed.

In the media's spin, this was simply the trial of a local big-shot who opened his mouth one time too many and got caught. Nothing to do with Barack Obama or his associations or the polluted political pond that for years he swam in.

But there was always a feeling that the media was holding their breath -- up until news broke that the defense would rest without calling Blago to testify in his own defense.

Not only would the defense rest with no Blago, but it would rest with no Emanuel, no Rezko, no Jarrett, no Durbin, no Jackson, no Reid, no etc… That’s a lot of questions dodged by a lot of people.

Locals may greet the news with a shrug. Around Chicago far worse things get swept under the rug all the time. A few years ago a mysterious fire in the Evidence Room of the Cook County Building killed six county employees. There was some initial hubbub, but after a week or two the story just went away. To this day all we know about the matter is that some evidence was destroyed and six people died. The man ultimately in charge of the investigation, Cook County Board President John Stroger, was a supporter of Barack Obama.

Can anybody reading this guess how the “deal” was made? I can't. Who gets what, and how was the problem made to go away? Previous Illinois Governor, Republican George Ryan, is mid-way through a seven year sentence for corruption. How much time will Blago get? Will he get any time? Will he retire somewhere fat and happy with an off-shore bank account?

It is all part of the infinite puzzle of Chicago Politics.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

All The News That's Fit to Print

All of a sudden, they seem pretty optimistic over at BP. Sounds like they may finally be getting a handle on the Gulf oil spill.

Engineers are installing a new containment cap which is expected be a big improvement over the current cap. That first device, lowered into place on June 3rd, has managed to capture only about one-third of the estimated 60-80,000 barrels of crude gushing from the bottom of the Gulf each day. As we know, the other two-thirds of that oil continued to pollute the shrimp and oyster beds, kill wildlife, wash into marshes and spread onto white sand beaches. It will be about a week before installation is complete and crews can determine if the new cap works. Ideally, it will capture all or most of the oil.

Success will take a big load off President Obama’s mind. Knowing that he can play golf, fiddle with the nation’s economic system, or sue the State of Arizona without feeling like he’s somehow tied down to a crisis that needs attention should put a little of the swagger back in his step.

For Obama the best news is the fact that, if the new cap is successful, the leak will essentially be stopped before the invisible July 28th “deadline”, which would mark Day-100.

Not that an oil spill lasting 100 days would be guaranteed in-depth media coverage. There seems to be an unspoken truce between the President and the media: he’s not saying anything about the spill and the press isn’t asking. It would be nice if they’d ask even a teensy little question; like, how did BP become a finalist for a Major Award on safety and pollution control to be given just days after the initial explosion and disaster?
Wouldn’t any finalist have to undergo an inspection to qualify for such an award in the first place?

There were a few outbursts among talking heads back around Day-50, but they all seemed to quickly get back on the same page. Since then, aside from The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily and talk radio, there has been a remarkable lack of media intensity in nosing around the story. They’ve been compliant, too, down along the Gulf, in staying back behind the yellow police tape strung along the beaches and wetlands, in not bothering people or otherwise getting in the way. Strange, isn’t it, that Bush and Cheney were often derided as oilmen – the word “oilmen” said with a sneer – then the nation elects a highly qualified community organizer from Chicago and this happens. It only goes to show that even for a man of Barack Obama’s gifts there is a limit to what he could learn from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

Still, there are lingering questions that need to be asked – and answered truthfully – about some of the connections between BP and the current Administration; from the dollars BP donated to the Obama presidential campaign in ’08 and the gobs of money they’ve given to Democrats in general, to the cozy personal relationship between White House chief of staff, Rham Emanuel and BP lobbyists, to the breezy way Obama’s people in the U.S. Minerals and Management Service waved through BP’s list of variances and exemptions to standard drilling requirements.

President Obama’s hand-picked Minerals and Management Service director, Elizabeth Birnbaum, was thrown under the bus soon after the disaster occured and word of several other, shall we say, SNAFUs got out. So far, enterprising reporters have failed to track down Ms Birnbaum and question her.

To be fair, the Main Stream Press has generally had its hands full lately with other important breaking news. Waiving a calendar and pointing to an arbitrary “Day-100” of an environmental disaster is no guarantee such a story would be considered “news”, or that there would be any space available. These are extraordinary times we live in. Recently, displacing Gulf oils spill was coverage of the tragic Lindsay Lohan court case. Simultaneously crucial contract negotiations were under way involving NBA star LeBron James’, who ended up signing with the Miami Heat. Naturally this shocking development called for lots of interviews with angry fans in Cleveland and happy fans in Miami. Of those interviewed I saw, none seemed terribly upset about the oil spill. And then, wouldn’t you know it, in the middle of all of this, Mel Gibson went off the deep end again.

Looking ahead to the end of July, space for stories about out-of-work fishermen, lax governmental oversight, environmental catastrophe, and questionable Washington ethics will be especially limited. Right around that mythical “Day-100” Pro football training camps will be opening and the pre-season will be just around the corner; the major television networks will be pitching their new fall line-up; and with any luck at all Hef will be on his way to repurchasing Playboy, which some feel he never should have sold in the first place. Any one of these things could lead to a potential big story. Besides, by now just about everybody this side of a Tonight Show “Jay Walking” segment knows that there’s been a leak in the Gulf of Mexico since the middle of April. Right? So, what’s the big deal?

Well, seriously folks, there is a Big Deal. A bureaucratic Charley-Foxtrot of this magnitude demands accountability.

The so-called Main Stream Press has simply become too conflicted and too timid to do its part of the job. Remember all the Hurricane Katrina coverage; the weeks and months of follow-up stories; the stream of celebrity charity concerts; the coffee table commemorative books; the documentaries? Remember how the incompetence of state and local elected officials and the massive crime wave that followed the flooding were carefully Photoshopped out of the story and George Bush was Photoshopped in? We know what it looks like when the official eyes and ears of the media are hot on a story. We know how they sound when they want heads to roll. Right now the media is just going through the motions. They are uncomfortable with this story and are ready to move on.

Next up: Congressional hearings. Damage along the Gulf Coast is not going away anytime soon, no matter how much hush-money the Obama Administration wrings out of BP shareholders to throw at the local economy. No one in the current Administration is interested in getting answers about causes of the Gulf oil spill or the tardiness of Federal response to it. Neither the Harry Reid Senate, nor the Nancy Pelosi House is curious. Otherwise they’d already be holding hearings. Assuming a Republican take-over of either chamber in November, the new Republican committee chairmen should be clear: responsible Federal officials will be subpoenaed. Those who caused or compounded this disaster deserve to tell their stories under oath.

Remember in November.

This essay was originally published on The American Thinker, under the title; "Suppressing the Political Impact of the Gulf Oil Crisis" July 13, 2010