Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Isabel Faye


Isabel will be 7 months at the end of this week. Hard to comprehend how fast she is growing and changing!

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Politicizing 9/11

Yesterday, the big news was that the U.S. plans this year to prosecute 6 suspects involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although I am glad to see the U.S. moving forward on an effort to exact justice on detainees, I am deeply suspicious of the timing.

I am not alone in this suspicion. The New York Times is reporting today that the timing "suits Bush" as he works to improve his record in the history books. The article also notes it likely will help the Republican nominee. Indeed.

Justice ought not be politicized. But, I think we have another example of the Bush administration politicizing the judicial process (recall the firing of 9 federal attorneys two years ago, and the implication that they were fired for political reasons).

If we had evidence on the 6 defendants before now, then there should have been a military trial before now.

Instead, the Bush administration is going to try one last time to maximize Americans' fear of terrorist attacks by forcing us to relive 9/11 just in time for the presidential elections.

The implication, of course, is that John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) will benefit by public attention on fear, security, and 9/11.

Disgusting.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Super Tuesday --

--is my Super Bowl Sunday!

Monday, February 04, 2008

The Sunday Morning Talk Shows

I have become a religious watcher of the Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. I "DVR" the show and watch it when I'm up and Isabel is mellow. I enjoy Russert's unblinking questions of our major politicians, and I enjoy the roundtable commentary of the pundits who speculate on polls, campaign strategies and political stumbles.

One thing that has been bugging, me, though, is the lack of independence of the pundits Russert has on. This last Sunday he had on his usual roundtable of Bob Shrum, Mike Murphy, James Carville, and Mary Matalin. All of them have ties to some of the current candidates running for office (Carville worked for Bill Clinton; Murphy worked for John McCain). Their own current and former loyalties seem to interfere with their abilities to look squarely and evenly at the contenders. Carville, for example, loves Hillary Clinton, so when he starts to question Obama's abilities and talents, one wonders if he's not trying to help Hillary out a little by singing her praises and questioning Obama.

Indeed, the New York Times wrote an article analyzing this very issue. So, clearly, I'm not the only one bothered by this picture.

I think what worries me is that people less knowledgeable about the insiders has no idea what the allegiances and alliances of the pundits are, and so take them at their word. I wish that more was said during their introductions to highlight their relationships, and possibly to even question their assessments because of their relationships.

I don't think that they should be disqualified from being part of the pundit class, but I do think it should be clearer what their historical relationships are. That way, viewers can judge for themselves whether the pundits are being thoughtful or simply loyal.