It’s a given that journalists tend to lean
toward the left, toward, as film maker Michael Moore calls it, “progressive
liberalism.” One of my older journalism textbooks suggests
that the liberal mind set is pretty common in the field. That
and a natural sense of curiosity and an ability to ask difficult
questions. That’s cool. I grew up with admiration for the “investigative
reporter,” that guy or gal who had the guts to go after
the big guys. I still do. I firmly believe that one of the hallmarks
of our country is the role of the free press—the “fourth
estate” of government that insures we aren’t dominated
by a totalitarian regime. But when the press gets too full of
itself and guys like Wolf Blitzer interview the likes of Colin
Powell and, it seems, give them a premeditated tongue lashing,
then I have to make a stand. The extreme element of the left
is forcing the issue, and the closer you look, the less you believe
in the ethics of neutrality. It seems the creed is, “be
objective, as long as you’re dealing with a fellow liberal.”
The far left used to be comical. As much as I opposed his viewpoints,
I used to get a chuckle out of people like the late Minnesota
Senator Paul Wellstone, who would be the sole dissenting “nay” in
a congressional vote. Nowadays, liberals scare me. They compare
President George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler, and the World Trade
Center attacks to the “Reichstag Fire” that allowed
the Nazi’s to take control of the German Parliament in
the 1930s. Everything is due to this “vast right-wing
conspiracy.”
People of America, it’s OK. You can vote conservative and
support Bush and STILL have brains. The argument to the contrary
is an old liberal ruse you might as well ignore because a sense
of “intellectual superiority” is one of the prerequisites
for getting a Democratic Party membership card.
I do support our current president, even though I’ll admit, “Dubya” isn’t
going to win any Toastmaster awards. Bush isn’t the most
gifted public speaker on earth. He is stubborn at times, and
often seemingly opinionated. He probably learned conflict resolution,
in part, from some of those great John Wayne westerns. (Those
who have spent any significant time in Texas know that he’s
a perfectly normal Texan, but I had to throw that disclaimer
in for the rest of the world.) I will wholeheartedly admit that
presidential candidate John Kerry is marginally a better speaker
than Bush. The point is, flowery speech and rhetoric doesn’t
make the man. Former President Bill Clinton, the “best
used car salesman to sleep in the White House,” was an
excellent public speaker. He could address a group and deliver
a convincing message, look the audience straight in the eye,
and make his point. Even better, he could address another audience,
give an opposite opinion, and be equally convincing.
Kerry, while “no Bill Clinton,” seems to share the
same gift. He came to fame as a Vietnam veteran, disillusioned
enough about his experience to testify before Congress about
America’s “War Crimes.” He told the world that
American service men were a bunch of, “baby killing, murdering
rapists.” He threw his medals on the White House lawn in
protest, and became an active figure in the antiwar movement.
Had Kerry maintained his stance throughout his career, I would
respect him. Disagree with him, yes. I respect people who hold
true to their convictions. You don’t have to agree with
someone to respect them.
Kerry is now saying he is proud of his service, and his 4.5
months as the captain of a Navy swift boat has become the focal
point
of his campaign. The former war protester, who publicly denounced
his service and the service of thousands more, has changed
his tune for political advantage. Because of the times, Kerry
is
running as an experienced “wartime candidate,” with
former brothers in arms in tow and war stories to boot. Never
mind that his claim of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of
1968 was retracted. It makes for great political theater.
Despite the comparisons to Hitler, and all the evil conspiracy
theories surrounding him and his administration, George W.
Bush is pretty much, “WYSIWYG.” (What you see is what
you get.) He’s a hardheaded, proud Texan, and despite his
privileged upbringing, Bush is pretty tough. Drive through West
Texas and you won’t find many soft people there— not
a yacht in sight. I tip my hat to any man that can quit drinking “cold
turkey” for his wife and kids.
Sept. 11, 2001 was a big wake up call for us. Bush happened
to be on watch, and his response made me believe in him more
than
any speech or photo op. Since then, our struggle hasn’t
been story-book, as has been the case in any conflict America
has fought in. Bush and his administration have answered the
call in an unfamiliar set of circumstances. Had his opponent
won the election, we might well still be debating economic sanctions
against Afghanistan in the United Nations. Before 9-11, America
had never experienced a serious, direct, surprise attack by a
foreign power. We continue to live under threat of attack. No
person, or alliance with our allies, or diplomatic move, save
aggressively asserting our nation’s sovereignty, is going
to turn back time and return us to an age of innocence.
During another perilous chapter in our past, President Abraham
Lincoln was running for reelection in the midst of the Civil
War. He implored voters, “not to change horses in midstream.” The
stakes for this nation are equally high, if not higher, than
the grave situation of the 1860s. And the comparison is legitimate
because, then as now, our nation seemed to be split along ideological
lines.
These are uncertain times, and the “two weeks of national
unity” following early September 2001 have eroded into
the usual party discord. At this stage, with the stakes so high,
I’m willing to place my bet in the man “who has been
dealing with it” on a daily basis rather than a career
politician that says the right things when the microphone is
on. Besides, if we’re “crossing the water,” everyone
knows Texans ride horses better. |
