I'll admit it- I'm tired of healthcare debates. This morning I decided to watch the only show not featuring congressmen rallying against (or for) the healthcare bill. So, instead of watching Kathleen Sebelius I tuned in for an interview of General David Petraeus, Commander US Central Command, with Fareed Zakaria.
My own father is a Petraeus fan so I decided that it'd be beneficial for me to at least understand what made him so "great." I have to say that Petraeus has had an excellent career; graduating at the top of his class at West Point he went on to earn a doctorate in international relations at the Woodrow Wilson School. He's served around the world in a variety of support and command positions. Most recently, as the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Petraeus became a front-man for the Obama administration's terror policy. While I was not completely taken in by Petraeus's arguments I must agree that he is relatively articulate, aware, and politically savvy. I'm weary of his demonstrated support for the surge and continued US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now there has been a lot of speculation within the beltway and across the country that General Petraeus might attempt a 2012 presidential run. He has claimed numerous times that he has no political ambitions. However, would I be surprised to see him form an exploratory committee? Absolutely not. In fact, he does have a vaguely presidential voice. His interview gave you a sense that he understood the nuances of current events, politics, and his area of operations but left many of his answers intentionally vague. With coaching I think he could become a strong and potentially competitive Republican primary challenge.
Okay. I'm sick of "bipartisanship." Completely done with it. Every politician seems to think its a magical buzz-word that will negate any suspicions of political maneuvering or Congressional roadblocks. In my opinion, partisanship is exactly what the founders wanted. A democracy has, without fail, a majority and a minority. They are supposed to act independently, and, at times, together. The Democratic party maintains control of the White House and Congress for the first time in years. Why aren't they taking advantage of it? I thought the Obama election was supposed to represent a mandate. I think it's time that mandate was seized firmly.
Today as I watched "This Week" and saw Elizabeth Vargas's interview with Speaker Pelosi I couldn't help but shuffle to the edge of my seat--just waiting for her to say "We're going to get them passed with or without them." It's time for them to stop being conciliatory. The President and the Speaker (AND FOR THAT MATTER THE MAJORITY LEADER) need to wrestle some arms. Yes mid-terms are coming but healthcare reform has been on the Democratic platform for decades. The conditions are finally here to do something about it and all I see is internal party politics. A strong leader of the Democratic party needs to emerge. He or she needs to demand results and show the public that something can be done within Washington's gridlock. I'm tired of seeing my party flounder in national tracking polls and continue to accept absurd Republican amendments. We have a majority. If a Democrat is too cowardly to vote "yay" then restrict his or her DCCC funding. Cut them off. It's time to see who lives up to the name "Democrat" and who is simply masquerading. If anything, today's Sunday shows made me furious that nothing had been done since this entire healthcare debacle emerged months ago. Only just now releasing an online copy of his "new" proposal puts President Obama months off pace. I'm incredibly worried that with all the in-fighting the Senate seems plagued with absolutely nothing will get done before this summer. The message here: Get yourself together and lead. Now.
So once again I'm back to the Sunday Morning Shows Review. Instead of featuring a political talk show I decided to hone in on another venerable morning address, the news documentary show with an apt title "Sunday Morning."
I'll be honest; usually I ignore "Sunday Morning" entirely. My dad's watched the show every week since the nineties. Rather than an entertaining show, it's become more of an awkward household nick-nack. From Charles Osgood to the other reporters whose faces I've tried desperately to forget, they all seemed to signal that it was time for me to go read, do homework, do anything at all really.
Here's my point: I was reminded today that "Sunday Morning" has SOME redeeming qualities. Towards the end of the program today I watched a segment where astronauts spun an inflatable globe in the International Space Station and, without looking, pointed out a spot that they wanted the producers to research, all in an effort to achieve a greater sense of global understanding. It was truly interesting to watch a reporter go to India, Latvia, and even Oman in an effort to interview just one person. Randomly selecting names out of phone books, the reporter found an elderly blind man in India living with 13 family members who all share the same bank account, a Latvian body builder who achieved great success in his sport after suffering hepatitis at a young age, an Omani man who earned a fortune in the oil business after growing up in a small mud apartment. I thought the program was simple yet inspiring, a human interest story with international flair that boiled life down to the basics-- that the lifestyles of these individuals were all relatively similar and that, like the view of the Earth from space, they were all indistinguishable from their brethren. (by the way this last part was the sign-off and not my own musings).
I tried to find a link to this segment but alas it's not posted. If you're interested in "Sunday Morning" I'd refer you to their website, here.
recent posts