Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Murtha’s Game. What was he thinking?
Don’t let me spoil the party by forgetting to mention how much I respect and admire Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). This guy is just like Raymond; EVERYBODY loves him. I’m sure you will all enjoying the MSM’s many Valentines to him. Since when do liberals love congressmen who are cozy with defense contractors? Please don’t get me wrong. I do respect and admire this decorated Viet Nam veteran, and would not miss a chance to express the profound gratitude I feel for his service, like the gratitude I have for every American who has ever put on the uniform, past and present. It is that very service that left so many of us scratching our heads after Rep. Murtha’s “bring them home now” speech last week. Surely a man with his distinguished military record understands the demoralizing and destructive effect these comments have on our troops in the field. No, I don’t share the stunned amazement of our MSM friends when a clear-thinking and plain-speaking guy like Rep. Geoff Smith (R-KY) states the obvious: that statements like Rep. Murtha’s give aid and comfort to the enemy. So what could cause him to do such a thing? What was he thinking? Here are some theories that I’ve been kicking around:
The Good Soldier Theory
On Sunday’s show, I asked what Nancy Pelosi had promised Rep. Murtha (I know, as I said, we don’t want to think about it) to get him to make these statements, which the weasels who lead the democrat party want to infect the bloodstream of our political debate, but don’t want traced back to them. She issued a statement that “Mr. Murtha speaks for himself.” Now we read in Howard Fineman’s Newsweek piece (see “Recent Show Topics” at teriobrien.com) that in fact Rep. Pelosi did in fact meet with Rep. Murtha in advance of his speech, all the while knowing that when the time came, she would deny having anything to do with it. Mr. Fineman also mentions how much Rep. Murtha admires the late Tip O’Neill. He also reminisces about how O’Neill told LBJ that Viet Nam was lost. Apparently, at least according to Fineman, who is clearly intoxicated with nostalgia for the good old days when the MSM had a monopoly on information and could spin victories like the Tet Offensive into defeats, Murtha was thinking of his idol Tip when he decided to go public with his call for withdrawal. By doing so, he could have the chance to be a hero for his party.
The Pre-Emptive Strike Theory
On Sunday, I told you about the fact that the inside baseball paper Roll Call has reported that the some Republicans are now saying that ties between Rep. Murtha and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA, may warrant an ethics investigation. Was this speech last week a pre-emptive strike? If and when the ethics investigation does get started, he can suggest it is payback from the White House for his anti-war comments. I’m not naïve enough to discount the possibility that it is payback from the Bush administration, but the fact that virtually no one in MSM has mentioned this potential ethics problem for Murtha, makes me suspect it’s the pre-emptive strike.
The “You Like Me, You Really Like Me” Theory (with apologies to Sally Field)
On Sunday, Tim Russert asked “How has your life changed in the last 72 hours?” Rep. Murtha replied (in part) “ Well, I would say—you know, people said when I said this it would be an earth-shaking event. I didn’t believe it, but it’s not me.” Yet earlier, in response to a question about whether the president should fire Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, his answer contained something very revealing; specifically “I have never seen such an outpouring in the 32 years I’ve been in Congress, of support and people with tears in their eyes, people walking along clapping when I’m walking through the halls of Congress, saying something needed to be said.” So, really, isn’t it in fact, at least in part, all about Rep. Murtha? This episode is the closest thing he’s going to come to the cult-of-the-personality, rock star treatment given to celebrity empty suits like Barack Obama. Thirty-five years ago, some of these liberal media elites who are praising him to the sky right now were probably marching around proudly waiving Viet Cong flags, spitting and screeching at guys like him when they came home from Viet Nam. Some of them may have even spit on him, for all they or he knows. Now, he’s become their hero, the charging into battle with the ultimate evil. No, not terrorism, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney. It’s a sad fact that when brave men like Rep. Murtha fought a genuine evil (communism) they received ridicule and contempt from the elitist opinion leaders determined that the hated Richard Nixon not be permitted to win a war that the democrats had badly bungled, yet when now when he leads a partisan attempt to improve the fortunes of the democrat party, even at the risk of our national security, he collects bouquets and suddenly becomes “an influential democrat.”
So, which is it? You can vote at teriobrien.com
Don’t let me spoil the party by forgetting to mention how much I respect and admire Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). This guy is just like Raymond; EVERYBODY loves him. I’m sure you will all enjoying the MSM’s many Valentines to him. Since when do liberals love congressmen who are cozy with defense contractors? Please don’t get me wrong. I do respect and admire this decorated Viet Nam veteran, and would not miss a chance to express the profound gratitude I feel for his service, like the gratitude I have for every American who has ever put on the uniform, past and present. It is that very service that left so many of us scratching our heads after Rep. Murtha’s “bring them home now” speech last week. Surely a man with his distinguished military record understands the demoralizing and destructive effect these comments have on our troops in the field. No, I don’t share the stunned amazement of our MSM friends when a clear-thinking and plain-speaking guy like Rep. Geoff Smith (R-KY) states the obvious: that statements like Rep. Murtha’s give aid and comfort to the enemy. So what could cause him to do such a thing? What was he thinking? Here are some theories that I’ve been kicking around:
The Good Soldier Theory
On Sunday’s show, I asked what Nancy Pelosi had promised Rep. Murtha (I know, as I said, we don’t want to think about it) to get him to make these statements, which the weasels who lead the democrat party want to infect the bloodstream of our political debate, but don’t want traced back to them. She issued a statement that “Mr. Murtha speaks for himself.” Now we read in Howard Fineman’s Newsweek piece (see “Recent Show Topics” at teriobrien.com) that in fact Rep. Pelosi did in fact meet with Rep. Murtha in advance of his speech, all the while knowing that when the time came, she would deny having anything to do with it. Mr. Fineman also mentions how much Rep. Murtha admires the late Tip O’Neill. He also reminisces about how O’Neill told LBJ that Viet Nam was lost. Apparently, at least according to Fineman, who is clearly intoxicated with nostalgia for the good old days when the MSM had a monopoly on information and could spin victories like the Tet Offensive into defeats, Murtha was thinking of his idol Tip when he decided to go public with his call for withdrawal. By doing so, he could have the chance to be a hero for his party.
The Pre-Emptive Strike Theory
On Sunday, I told you about the fact that the inside baseball paper Roll Call has reported that the some Republicans are now saying that ties between Rep. Murtha and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA, may warrant an ethics investigation. Was this speech last week a pre-emptive strike? If and when the ethics investigation does get started, he can suggest it is payback from the White House for his anti-war comments. I’m not naïve enough to discount the possibility that it is payback from the Bush administration, but the fact that virtually no one in MSM has mentioned this potential ethics problem for Murtha, makes me suspect it’s the pre-emptive strike.
The “You Like Me, You Really Like Me” Theory (with apologies to Sally Field)
On Sunday, Tim Russert asked “How has your life changed in the last 72 hours?” Rep. Murtha replied (in part) “ Well, I would say—you know, people said when I said this it would be an earth-shaking event. I didn’t believe it, but it’s not me.” Yet earlier, in response to a question about whether the president should fire Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, his answer contained something very revealing; specifically “I have never seen such an outpouring in the 32 years I’ve been in Congress, of support and people with tears in their eyes, people walking along clapping when I’m walking through the halls of Congress, saying something needed to be said.” So, really, isn’t it in fact, at least in part, all about Rep. Murtha? This episode is the closest thing he’s going to come to the cult-of-the-personality, rock star treatment given to celebrity empty suits like Barack Obama. Thirty-five years ago, some of these liberal media elites who are praising him to the sky right now were probably marching around proudly waiving Viet Cong flags, spitting and screeching at guys like him when they came home from Viet Nam. Some of them may have even spit on him, for all they or he knows. Now, he’s become their hero, the charging into battle with the ultimate evil. No, not terrorism, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney. It’s a sad fact that when brave men like Rep. Murtha fought a genuine evil (communism) they received ridicule and contempt from the elitist opinion leaders determined that the hated Richard Nixon not be permitted to win a war that the democrats had badly bungled, yet when now when he leads a partisan attempt to improve the fortunes of the democrat party, even at the risk of our national security, he collects bouquets and suddenly becomes “an influential democrat.”
So, which is it? You can vote at teriobrien.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
As I’ve said many times: NEVER DOUBT ME!
On last Sunday’s show, smart listener Joe asked me if I would ever consider running for governor. The short answer, as many of you heard, is “no.” I’m sorry: make that “NO!!” You may think the reasons are obvious. Sure, find the prospect of walking around with my hand out, begging for money or even being reduced to sucking up to anyone with a few extra scheckles to throw my way, extremely distasteful. Nor do I think I could survive the demagoguery that would greet many of my public statements. No matter how articulate I was in pointing out the mischaracterizations of my critics, casual listeners would come away with the wrong idea about me.
The real reason that I am completely ineligible to run for public office, and proudly so, in fact, is that I didn’t inherit the weasel gene. Please don’t misunderstand. As I said on Sunday, there are many politicians who are fine public servants, and I do believe that most people who go into politics do so with the best of intentions (wanting to make the world a better place, helping the helpless, etc. etc.). Once there, though, I think we need to face the reality that many (no, not all) of them rationalize corner cutting, backsliding and other brownnosing by saying “If I don’t stay in office, I won’t be able to do anyone any good.” So, the overriding priority becomes staying in office, which is enough to turn the most principled person into a poll-obsessed, spineless weasel.
Witness the pathetic performance by the Senate yesterday, voting 58-40 to force the administration to submit quarterly reports to Congress on our progress in the Iraq war, and expressing its sense that by 2006 the Iraqis must take over. To this I say “As if!”
As if the Congress doesn’t receive enough reports on Iraq as it is! As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld noted yesterday, "Department of Defence and the Department of State send literally dozens of Iraqi-related reports to Congress each year already," he said. The Pentagon alone sent Congress "something over 900 reports total every year" on an array of subjects, he said. "I hope someone reads them." Hey, that’s what I was thinking. I guess great minds think alike.
It’s predictable when liberals, who have been trying to recreate the defeatist dream they achieved in Vietnam, and its subsequent bloodbath, do everything they can to encourage the enemy, demoralize our troops and spew incessant disinformation about our war effort, just as they did in Vietnam. It’s sickening when Republicans, protecting their own sorry rear ends and thinking about polls and partisan politics rather than our national security, refuse to show leadership and to stand up to those who reek with the stench of appeasement and surrender.
One final note: you know how strongly I disagree with Senator McCain, about a number of things, most recently over his desire to make sure our military is limited to asking murderous terrorists polite questions when trying to find out which national landmark they hope to blow up next, but I must give him credit for voting against this timetable foolishness yesterday. He voted against it because he understands that even the Republicans watered-down version of this weasel amendment is damaging to our war effort. Isn’t it interesting that many of the very same people who praise Sen. McCain when he disagrees with the Bush administration and suggest that his Vietnam experience makes him an indisputable authority did not appreciate the wisdom of his vote yesterday?
On last Sunday’s show, smart listener Joe asked me if I would ever consider running for governor. The short answer, as many of you heard, is “no.” I’m sorry: make that “NO!!” You may think the reasons are obvious. Sure, find the prospect of walking around with my hand out, begging for money or even being reduced to sucking up to anyone with a few extra scheckles to throw my way, extremely distasteful. Nor do I think I could survive the demagoguery that would greet many of my public statements. No matter how articulate I was in pointing out the mischaracterizations of my critics, casual listeners would come away with the wrong idea about me.
The real reason that I am completely ineligible to run for public office, and proudly so, in fact, is that I didn’t inherit the weasel gene. Please don’t misunderstand. As I said on Sunday, there are many politicians who are fine public servants, and I do believe that most people who go into politics do so with the best of intentions (wanting to make the world a better place, helping the helpless, etc. etc.). Once there, though, I think we need to face the reality that many (no, not all) of them rationalize corner cutting, backsliding and other brownnosing by saying “If I don’t stay in office, I won’t be able to do anyone any good.” So, the overriding priority becomes staying in office, which is enough to turn the most principled person into a poll-obsessed, spineless weasel.
Witness the pathetic performance by the Senate yesterday, voting 58-40 to force the administration to submit quarterly reports to Congress on our progress in the Iraq war, and expressing its sense that by 2006 the Iraqis must take over. To this I say “As if!”
As if the Congress doesn’t receive enough reports on Iraq as it is! As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld noted yesterday, "Department of Defence and the Department of State send literally dozens of Iraqi-related reports to Congress each year already," he said. The Pentagon alone sent Congress "something over 900 reports total every year" on an array of subjects, he said. "I hope someone reads them." Hey, that’s what I was thinking. I guess great minds think alike.
It’s predictable when liberals, who have been trying to recreate the defeatist dream they achieved in Vietnam, and its subsequent bloodbath, do everything they can to encourage the enemy, demoralize our troops and spew incessant disinformation about our war effort, just as they did in Vietnam. It’s sickening when Republicans, protecting their own sorry rear ends and thinking about polls and partisan politics rather than our national security, refuse to show leadership and to stand up to those who reek with the stench of appeasement and surrender.
One final note: you know how strongly I disagree with Senator McCain, about a number of things, most recently over his desire to make sure our military is limited to asking murderous terrorists polite questions when trying to find out which national landmark they hope to blow up next, but I must give him credit for voting against this timetable foolishness yesterday. He voted against it because he understands that even the Republicans watered-down version of this weasel amendment is damaging to our war effort. Isn’t it interesting that many of the very same people who praise Sen. McCain when he disagrees with the Bush administration and suggest that his Vietnam experience makes him an indisputable authority did not appreciate the wisdom of his vote yesterday?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Hey Liberals--Could we have just a little intellectual honesty and consistency here?
This morning a C-SPAN caller said she wishes that we could have “free education” here like the free education we’re giving people in Iraq. Leaving aside the fact that we do give children free education from K-12, I have a question. Is it just me or is this yet another example of the liberal schizophrenia that I like to call “which is it?” I say that because whenever the liberals want to put a gun to the heads of productive citizens and confiscate some of their hard-earned money to pour yet another socialist, do-gooder program rathole, I seem to remember their quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes by saying “taxation is the price we pay for civilization.” (Given the fact that in a few short years we’ve gone from a time when a drunk in a bar wouldn’t say the “F” word to today when we can hear 15 year-olds blithely using it as they publicly chat away on their cell phones, with taxes higher than ever, I’m wondering if we’ve gotten our monies worth. But I digress …) Yet, when we determine that in the interest of our own national security we need to help establish a stable democracy in the raging pit of hatred and anti-Americanism known as the Middle East, they whine that the money would be better spent on them and their client groups. All of a sudden it’s not enough to have the privilege to live in America. That’s only for those of us dumb enough to work hard and actually be successful. We are supposed to bend over; that is, don’t ask any questions, just submit to your intellectual superiors and pay for those things that they have determined would be a better use for your money.
C’mon, libs. A little intellectual honesty and consistency would help your cause a lot. Not that I’m holding my breath.
This morning a C-SPAN caller said she wishes that we could have “free education” here like the free education we’re giving people in Iraq. Leaving aside the fact that we do give children free education from K-12, I have a question. Is it just me or is this yet another example of the liberal schizophrenia that I like to call “which is it?” I say that because whenever the liberals want to put a gun to the heads of productive citizens and confiscate some of their hard-earned money to pour yet another socialist, do-gooder program rathole, I seem to remember their quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes by saying “taxation is the price we pay for civilization.” (Given the fact that in a few short years we’ve gone from a time when a drunk in a bar wouldn’t say the “F” word to today when we can hear 15 year-olds blithely using it as they publicly chat away on their cell phones, with taxes higher than ever, I’m wondering if we’ve gotten our monies worth. But I digress …) Yet, when we determine that in the interest of our own national security we need to help establish a stable democracy in the raging pit of hatred and anti-Americanism known as the Middle East, they whine that the money would be better spent on them and their client groups. All of a sudden it’s not enough to have the privilege to live in America. That’s only for those of us dumb enough to work hard and actually be successful. We are supposed to bend over; that is, don’t ask any questions, just submit to your intellectual superiors and pay for those things that they have determined would be a better use for your money.
C’mon, libs. A little intellectual honesty and consistency would help your cause a lot. Not that I’m holding my breath.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Greatest risk to children? It’s not pit bulls.
On Monday, 11/7/05, the lead story in all the local news was the terrible Cary pit bull attack, which left two children, 10 year-old Nick Foley and his friend, Jordan Lamarre, also 10, seriously injured and hospitalized. I send my thoughts and prayers to them and to their families. Fortunately, it appears that they are recovering and I hope and pray that they will be 100% soon.
On Halloween while I was handing out candy at my front door, one of my neighbors asked “where are the dogs?” Since the Husband and I walk them several times a day, our two dogs are well-known in our neighborhood. Both adoptees rescued from shelters and graduates of several obedience classes, they are generally well-behaved. Still, they are never allowed to be unsupervised, even in our fenced yard, because too many unforeseen bad things can happen. On a night when many excited children are roaming the streets and the door is frequently being opened and closed, the dogs were in the only place that a sane person would put them, in their crates, happily chewing toys, oblivious to the constant stimulation of strange people, shrieking youngsters and tempting open doors.
I think those who seek to place the blame for the injuries to the children in Cary on pit bulls are looking at the wrong end of the leash. Many dog owners forget, or never educate themselves about, how unpredictable any dog—yes, any dog, regardless of breed--can be. They act on impulse, so much so that they make Homer Simpson look deliberative and cautious by comparison. Example: a woman walked her dog off the leash every morning for 7 years right near her home, until one day, the dog saw something—squirrel? Cat? Bunny?—and darted into the street. The dog was killed. The Cary dogs’ owner, who was also injured during their rampage, should have anticipated that his dogs might act unpredictably, even get out and make sure that they didn’t. I’m sure he wishes he had.
Also, (and I’m not suggesting that the children in Cary acted in the way I’m about to describe, or were in any way at fault for what happened) many parents fail to teach their children how to behave around dogs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been walking my two on their partner leash only to see toddlers shrieking “Doggy!” racing toward us. As cute as mom, dad or grandma thinks that is, a dog may not always interpret that as a friendly greeting, but as a threat. Children should be taught to never approach a dog without the permission of the owner, and never by running at the dog while squealing. Running at, screaming and expressions of excitement and/or fear are the worst possible responses to dogs, even good dogs.
Responsible dog owners and responsible parents can, and should, protect children, and protect their pets if they’re paying attention, which they should be always.
Speaking of responsible adults and responsible parents, on the very same day that the papers were filled with this pit bull story, another story appeared, one that is also about serious risk of injury or even death to children. This risk is one that we’ve discussed frequently on the air, but one that IMO can’t get enough attention. Here’s the headline: “Live-in boyfriend puts kids at risk: study,” Ritter, Jim. Chicago Sun-Times, 11/7/05, p. 5. The article cites a study published in the journal Pediatrics which states that young children who live with mom’s boyfriend or other unrelated adults are 48—yes, 48—TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CHILD ABUSE than those who live with two biological parents.
Is it just me, or do you wish that this study got as much publicity as the pit bull attack? Don’t you think that more children are put at risk by the social pathology wrought by the wrongheaded “we-can’t-be-judgmental-do-your-own-thing” narcissism that infected our society in the 60’s and 70’s? Why do some women put their social lives ahead of the lives of their children? So many questions. I hope that soon we can get some answers.
On Monday, 11/7/05, the lead story in all the local news was the terrible Cary pit bull attack, which left two children, 10 year-old Nick Foley and his friend, Jordan Lamarre, also 10, seriously injured and hospitalized. I send my thoughts and prayers to them and to their families. Fortunately, it appears that they are recovering and I hope and pray that they will be 100% soon.
On Halloween while I was handing out candy at my front door, one of my neighbors asked “where are the dogs?” Since the Husband and I walk them several times a day, our two dogs are well-known in our neighborhood. Both adoptees rescued from shelters and graduates of several obedience classes, they are generally well-behaved. Still, they are never allowed to be unsupervised, even in our fenced yard, because too many unforeseen bad things can happen. On a night when many excited children are roaming the streets and the door is frequently being opened and closed, the dogs were in the only place that a sane person would put them, in their crates, happily chewing toys, oblivious to the constant stimulation of strange people, shrieking youngsters and tempting open doors.
I think those who seek to place the blame for the injuries to the children in Cary on pit bulls are looking at the wrong end of the leash. Many dog owners forget, or never educate themselves about, how unpredictable any dog—yes, any dog, regardless of breed--can be. They act on impulse, so much so that they make Homer Simpson look deliberative and cautious by comparison. Example: a woman walked her dog off the leash every morning for 7 years right near her home, until one day, the dog saw something—squirrel? Cat? Bunny?—and darted into the street. The dog was killed. The Cary dogs’ owner, who was also injured during their rampage, should have anticipated that his dogs might act unpredictably, even get out and make sure that they didn’t. I’m sure he wishes he had.
Also, (and I’m not suggesting that the children in Cary acted in the way I’m about to describe, or were in any way at fault for what happened) many parents fail to teach their children how to behave around dogs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been walking my two on their partner leash only to see toddlers shrieking “Doggy!” racing toward us. As cute as mom, dad or grandma thinks that is, a dog may not always interpret that as a friendly greeting, but as a threat. Children should be taught to never approach a dog without the permission of the owner, and never by running at the dog while squealing. Running at, screaming and expressions of excitement and/or fear are the worst possible responses to dogs, even good dogs.
Responsible dog owners and responsible parents can, and should, protect children, and protect their pets if they’re paying attention, which they should be always.
Speaking of responsible adults and responsible parents, on the very same day that the papers were filled with this pit bull story, another story appeared, one that is also about serious risk of injury or even death to children. This risk is one that we’ve discussed frequently on the air, but one that IMO can’t get enough attention. Here’s the headline: “Live-in boyfriend puts kids at risk: study,” Ritter, Jim. Chicago Sun-Times, 11/7/05, p. 5. The article cites a study published in the journal Pediatrics which states that young children who live with mom’s boyfriend or other unrelated adults are 48—yes, 48—TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CHILD ABUSE than those who live with two biological parents.
Is it just me, or do you wish that this study got as much publicity as the pit bull attack? Don’t you think that more children are put at risk by the social pathology wrought by the wrongheaded “we-can’t-be-judgmental-do-your-own-thing” narcissism that infected our society in the 60’s and 70’s? Why do some women put their social lives ahead of the lives of their children? So many questions. I hope that soon we can get some answers.
Monday, November 07, 2005
The Republican Party--the Party of Lincoln, remember?
Please attend the historic First Annual Fundraiser for the African American Republican Council of Illinois on Friday, 11/11/05 at 7 pm at Nikos Restaurant, 7600 S. Harlem Ave., Bridgeview, IL 60445. $60 per person, $600 per table For more info, please contact Dr. Eric Wallace at 312.201.0178. I will be the MC, BTW.
The keynote speaker is Rev. Wayne Perryman, author of Unfounded Loyalty. He'll explore the very intriguing question: why DO so many African-Americans vote for the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws and the Dred Scott decision?
Here's the website for the AARC of Illinois
http://www.aarcofillinois.com/
We look forward to seeing you!
Please attend the historic First Annual Fundraiser for the African American Republican Council of Illinois on Friday, 11/11/05 at 7 pm at Nikos Restaurant, 7600 S. Harlem Ave., Bridgeview, IL 60445. $60 per person, $600 per table For more info, please contact Dr. Eric Wallace at 312.201.0178. I will be the MC, BTW.
The keynote speaker is Rev. Wayne Perryman, author of Unfounded Loyalty. He'll explore the very intriguing question: why DO so many African-Americans vote for the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws and the Dred Scott decision?
Here's the website for the AARC of Illinois
http://www.aarcofillinois.com/
We look forward to seeing you!