Saturday, September 09, 2006

PYY News Briefs (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary That Goes With It)

This is what we all get when the PYY editor-in-chief is tired and/or not feeling well. This is also what we get when there is a lot going on in the news, as well as, when there's little to nothing. The past couple of days, I have been under the weather and there's a lot to write about.

So to quote the late Jackie Gleason, "And awayyyyy, we go!!!!".



Iran President Applies For Visa


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has applied for a U.S. visa, according to State Department officials.

The fiery leader plans to attend the U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York later this month. Official says that the application, which was submitted last month, is going through the normal processing procedure
.


Many that usually agree with me, may find me on the opposite side of the fence on this one.

First, let me say that I do not like him. In my personal and professional circle of friends and acquaintances, I know of no one that does. His views are reprehensible, he is a menace and a threat to world peace. I cannot find one admirable quality about him, he does nothing for his own people who are in the midst of a horrible economy. Instead of doing his countrymen and women some good, he spends his time trying to provoke and bully others.

But on the other hand, he must be allowed to address the UN, as is customary per UN protocol. It would be a foolish move to deny him the opportunity to make a fool of himself on the world stage, without censors. I know, I know. He probably would not have been elected in Iran, had more reform-minded candidates been allowed to run. But this is what we have. Wish as we might, we cannot change that one simple fact. We can only criticize and ostrasize.

And that's precisely what we should do, before, during, and after he says what he feels he has to say. Then he should leave, immediately.



NBC's David Gregory And WH Press Secretary Tony Snow In A Verbal Sparring Match


Snow got into a tussle with Gregory after the NBC journalist told him, in a lengthy remark, that the public may wonder why the president's statement and report today on the war on terror did not admit more failings on the administration's part. Snow observed that he had nicely summarized "the Democratic point of view," and Gregory took exception to this.

This happened earlier in the week. (Read the article for the complete exchange)

Tony is not Scott McClellan. He will not allow Gregory (a
magna cum laude graduate, of the "Bryant Gumbel School of Interviewing Skills") to mount a charge, without some return fire in the process. Someone, along the way, has told Gregory that he could be the next Sam Donaldson. As a result, he has been seen shopping for new hats to replace the ones, he just outgrew.

No one says that he has to softball Snow (or anyone else, for that matter). But there is a certain level of respect due at these kinds of events, and someone needs to have a chat with Ole David and help him to realize this. I know that his defenders will say that Tony dodged the question and David was just pressing him. But I think he felt embarassed because Tony one-upped him in the snippy quip department and he lost his composure and looked like a spoiled brat, in the process. But, he needs to get over it.

Why? Because all WHPSs over the years have dodged questions and they will always do so. It's just the nature of the beast, it's the way it is, and it will always be. Dodging questions knows no party lines, it's been going on long before little David was born and will go on long after he dies. And all politicians do it, not just administration officials. Senators, Representatives, Governors, and all bureaucrats that work for them; you name the title and they do it.

If I am David, I am not sure I would continue this overly combative strategic approach. I do not believe that there is anything that says he has to be allowed in the press conferences. I doubt there is anything NBC can do, but replace him with someone else, if his credentials are revoked. It wouldn't be so bad, if this kind of rude and obnoxious behavior hadn't occurred in the past.

No. Tony is no Scott McClellan and a Sam Donaldson, David is not. Sam had more class and was far more intelligent, than Gregory. He grilled his subjects hard, but he was far more respectful. Likewise, Tony is no pushover. Scott is a nice guy, but he allowed the press corps to run roughshod over him, at times. Tony displays a good nature takes the hard questions well (without getting flustered), and appears to be an easy going guy. But do not mistake that laid-back approach for weakness. Weak, he is NOT.



Neal Boortz: Democrats Are Not Telling The American People How They Would Keep The Nation Safe From Terrorist Attacks

I have said before that
Neal Boortz is my favorite talk show host, presently on the air. (I like several, but I absolutely love his for a whole host of reasons.) Although I do not always agree with him, I find myself seeing his point of view many more times, than not. His ideology is closest to mine, far more than any other.

This is a hard-hitting piece. If you have ever heard his show in Atlanta or in syndication, you certainly can hear his voice speaking this, as you read it. Give it a look, here is a tiny bit just to get a taste of it:



...after announcing their wonderful six-point plan, the Democrats actually made the point that their plan was based on more than a year of ... now, get this .... more than a year of consistent national polling data!

Can you believe that? Here we have a political party that is actually admitting that it is basing its plan to defend the United States from Islamic fascism on .... polling data!

(Emphasis is Neal's)



Now, those of you that read me enough, already know how I feel about polls.

I do not like them.

They are too easily skewed.

They are too easily skewed, because too few pollsters in this world really care about true measurement, in the true spirit and nature of research. Most pollsters (not all, but most) try to conduct a poll to prove their already formed biases. More times than not, the people behind the poll want the data to prove their point(s) or disprove their opponent(s)'. True researchers want the truth, no matter the outcome(s).

So now, we have Neal saying it clearly and plainly. National security is way too important to be entrusting it to a poll.

The Democrats seem to love entrusting any and everything to polls, these days. The Clinton White House depended heavily on them. To me, it says a lot when you let the general public pick your core values and set the agenda for delicate and sensitive policies. It says even more, when you take the chance on that poll being skewed, to do it.

Note-Okay, so they are not so brief. But honestly, they started out that way.

6 comments:

All_I_Can_Stands said...

And who said the world wanted another Sam Donaldson? What is it with people who like to see WH press ask disrespectful and inflammatory questions? Sure, ask probing questions to gain information. All Gregory does is ask questions that are simply statements of disagreement.

It would be interesting to see how Gregory would handle a Democrat administration. Probably the same way Donaldson did - with kid gloves.

LASunsett said...

//And who said the world wanted another Sam Donaldson?//

I am sure the liberal world of journalists do.

A.C. said...

The Khatami/A'jad trips are interesting. There was a Wall Street Journal story by Gigot that claimed Bush actually wanted Khatami here to pick his brain on the regime. Perhaps Cheney was there, too, as he showed up in Massachusetts as well. Wouldn't you love to be the fly on the wall...

LASunsett said...

AC,

I do not altogether trust Khatami. But, I have to say, he was a hell of a lot easier to deal with than the guy they have in there, now.

A.C. said...

He sure seems moderate by comparison. I just wonder if during their short pow-wow they tried to make a deal vis a vis getting Iran to back off Iraq in return for something..

LASunsett said...

AC,

//He sure seems moderate by comparison. I just wonder if during their short pow-wow they tried to make a deal vis a vis getting Iran to back off Iraq in return for something..//

That's certainly a distinct possibility. I do not know just how much clout Khatami still has with the supreme ayatollah, but they may be playing good politician, bad politician. Khatami good, Ahmadinejad bad. Both have their purposes in the psychological game, we are playing.

Many had actually hoped that Khatami would make a move towards normalizing relation with the US, at one point in time, when he was in office. But, the scuttlebutt was that the supreme ayatollah vetoed it down, then.

Khatami is a mullah, true enough. But he is a businessman, he is a millionaire. He knew that if they could make up to the US, he could possibly sell the idea of investment in Iran. Iran's economy was shot then and is even more shot now. I think I heard one source (don't remember where) said recently that unemployment is at 40%?

For that reason and that reason alone, all of the normailization stuff sounds feasible. But Ahmadinejad screwed that all up, when he got elected on his radical agenda. Now, the supreme ayatollah may be thinking that he's allowed his bozo president to get his country backed into a corner with his loose cannon style of speech-making. Maybe now he is sending Khatami to patch somne things up. Quietly.