Which Scandal is Which?

I’ve been stuck.  For two-and-a-half months, I’ve been avoiding this blog because I haven’t had (or, at least, haven’t made) the time to tackle the big project I so proudly announced on March 1st:  http://qwithaview.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/i-to-i-the-idea-takes-shape/ The idea definitely took shape.  It just hasn’t moved beyond that — yet.  I still aim to tackle that project.  And I know I need to be more proactive and give myself permission to write a little bit at a time, rather than insisting that I compose each piece in one fell swoop, so that it doesn’t seem quite so daunting.  

In the meantime, the political blogger inside my head has been pacing back and forth and whimper-whining like a dog anxiously awaiting his master’s return.  It didn’t feel right to put out other political content without first following through on the I to I plans.  But today, I decided it was time to….uh…let the dog out.  (Yeah, even I’m groaning at that one, but I liked the initial metaphor, so, hey, I’m going with it.)   I’m hereby giving myself permission to write of political things above and beyond and around and outside of the I to I project.  And…even better….to write short-ish blurbs rather than treatises, so that I can’t use time constraints as an excuse not to.  So, with that said….

I had Taco Bell for lunch today.  Which is of zero significance to anyone else, I realize, but it necessitated the use of my car.  So, naturally, I turned on the radio on my trek to the border, and tuned smack dab into the middle of President Obama’s remarks in the Rose Garden.  He spoke, uninterrupted, for three or four minutes, of investigations and wrongdoing and the need to get to the bottom of it all and fix it.   And all I could think to myself was, “Wait…is he talking about the IRS deal?  Or the AP-DOJ deal?  Or….something else?!”  

You know, when scandals are sufficiently numerous and troublesome that they become difficult to distinguish, somethin’ ain’t right.

 

I to I – The Idea Takes Shape

I’ve had this idea kicking around my head for awhile now.  Ever since the election, really, although I suspect the seeds of it took root long before that.  One of the clear take-aways from this past November and all the subsequent navel-gazing and handwringing was that there is a significant problem on the right with “messaging.”  Whatever the root causes — and no matter how complicit the “Mainstream Media” may be in ignoring or, in some cases, outright distorting, the message — it’s a serious issue which must be addressed if one holds out any hope for conservative ideology’s embrace by more than just a core group of steadfast right-thinkers.

.

As someone whose life revolves, in large part, around communication, I find this an especially frustrating issue.  Frustrating to see so many opportunities for productive dialogue missed; frustrating to see so much get lost in translation.  I suspect this is further amplified for me because of having spent roughly 75% of my life on “the other side” of The Great Divide. I am walking, breathing, living and — on good days — coherent proof that messaging, when handled properly, can be extraordinarily effective.  I suppose that is why this idea has been alternately tugging at my sleeve and kicking me in the pants.  I am hardly unique, but it is possible that, given my history and given the modest platform I’ve been permitted to perch upon, I might just have something to offer the cause here.  Might.

.

In order to set the stage for this, I think a brief account of how I came to be where I am might be in order.  I’ve alluded to my “conversion” here and in various radio appearances.  I was raised in a liberal Democrat family, where FDR and JFK were venerated and Walter Cronkite regularly assured us “that’s the way it is.”  I was a product of public (albeit, quality) schooling and obtained a liberal arts education and degree from college.  It wasn’t until I reached law school that I truly faced much challenge to my worldview.  And even then, it was only on occasion, from a conservative friend or acquaintance.   My standard response to any such challenge was to become increasingly agitated and combative until ultimately declaring the conversation over, and taking some measure of comfort in the challenger not having gotten the better of me.  Or so I told myself.

.

Still, there were times when, despite my smug self-(re)assurances, a small voice deep down inside me whispered, “What if?” and “Have you considered?” and, worst of all, “But is that really logically consistent?”  Oh, do I loathe logical inconsistencies.  I have a great love for things – and ideas — which are orderly, efficient and logically sound.

.

There is no one thing or moment to which I can point as being IT — THE dividing line between left and right for me.  It was an evolutionary process.  Some of it, I have to attribute to Rush Limbaugh.  And my laziness.  His show followed the morning show I used to listen to on my office radio and, my radio being across the office from my desk, I was frequently too lazy to get up and turn it off or change the station when his broadcast began.  He’d hold forth and I’d half tune him out/half listen and hiss back at him and his right wing idiocy.  But every once in awhile, he struck a chord.

.

Eventually, I decided to engage in a little thought experiment which involved me reading a book Rush had authored, but then cleansing my intellectual palate by following it with a book written by a well-known liberal.  I engaged in this process for some time, with several different books, and, perhaps had I chosen different authors, it would not have had the same effect.  But I wound up reading a Noam Chomsky book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” — which was, without question, the most tedious endeavor I have ever undertaken — followed by Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias.” While Noam’s incessant droning (it was an audio book) turned me violently against him, Bernie’s frank acknowledgment of the pervasive bias in most mainstream media shook me to my core.  For the first time in…ever…it dawned on me that every piece of information I consume is being fed to me through someone else’s filter.   And not all filters are equal.  Or agendaless.

.

I have to back up a bit and add that 9/11 had an undeniable impact on my worldview.  Traumatic and horrifying in an immediate fashion.  But it had a long-lasting and more subtle effect on the way I viewed our geo-political realities.  Additionally, a good friend and co-worker with whom I frequently lunched (and argued about politics, he being one of those obnoxious conservative sorts), pointed me to a conservative political website late in the fall of 2003.  I began frequenting it with an eye toward trolling (in light-hearted fashion) and schooling those silly wingnuts on an issue or two.  What I found, over time, though, was that some of the folks I encountered there were actually interested in thoughtful, civil dialogue.  And the more I allowed for that, the more I allowed for ideas I’d previously dismissed outright, to creep in and rattle about my brain.  That same friend once stunned me over lunch while we argued about abortion.  I tried to take the “reasonable” stance — noting that it wasn’t a choice I’d personally make and that I didn’t consider it a good thing, but I objected to restrictions being placed on the practice because an entire generation had grown up with it being legal and had relied on that expectation and….He stopped me in my tracks with one very short, pointed comment: “Slavery was legal in America for over 100 years.”  Wow.  Ow.

 

.

There were other points along the way — moments that further ushered me rightward — but suffice it to say I now find myself in a place I fondly refer to as “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate with Libertarian Leanings.”  Not to mention extraordinarily disenchanted with the current state of affairs.  And, no, that isn’t limited to just the past four years.  I have plenty of beefs with the previous President, and with Congress Critters of all stripe, past and present.  Basically, I’m at a point where I’m fed up with any and all who, instead of leading and focusing on rational, workable solutions designed to improving our lot as a nation, direct all or most of their energies toward gaining and retaining political advantage — power for power’s sake.  Paying not the slightest heed to the fact that they work for us.

 

.

Then again, why should they pay that minor detail any heed?  We certainly seem to have forgotten it.  Sure, many of us show up to perform our civic duty and vote.  But then we tuck our heads back down and get on about our daily lives without giving much thought to the fact that our responsibility as citizens doesn’t end when we exit the polling place.  We “hired” these people.  We have a duty to hold them accountable.  And the only way to do that is to pay attention to what they’re doing, and bark at them when they’re doing it wrong.  And then vote their sorry butts out if they don’t fix that.  The tricky part of that is it requires us to actually pay attention — to do the work required to be informed, to ponder the issues, to weigh the merits of proposed legislation, and to let our various elected representatives know where we stand.  That’s hard work.  And there are days when I can barely find the time to brush my hair, much less monitor what this elected official is doing or that one is proposing.

 

.

Point being, I get it.  I get why so many people are disinterested in politics.  Or worse — turned off by them because it seems all those who do take an interest in them ever do is bicker with one another about this politician or that idea.  It’s become a never-ending grudge match between left and right, with a win-at-all-costs mentality.  The problem is, no one’s actually “winning” much of anything.  And…to butcher a metaphor…Rome continues to burn.

 

.

So…to the point of all of this:  One year ago, the conservative movement lost a hero, a leader, a friend in Andrew Breitbart.  He was fearless in his willingness to engage “the other side,” to challenge the standard narrative, and to mix things up with his opponents and detractors in an oddly loving way.  He’s been referred to countless times as a “Happy Warrior.”  Many have focused on the “warrior” part of that description and taken it upon themselves to “do battle” in the name of conservatism.  That’s fine.  But it’s not really me.  I’m opting to focus on the “happy” part of that description, and take inspiration from that, and from the beautiful tribute my friend, Rick Hornsby, put together in the wake of Andrew’s death.  It showed the power of One Voice.  I have one of those.  And here’s how I propose to use it…(God, I hope this works….)

.

We’ve all seen those political compass-type quizzes.  The surveys you take which plot out where you fall on the political axis.  They cover a whole host of issues.  I’m going to use one of the better known ones as my starting point, and roll down the list of issues, one by one, one blog entry per week.  For each issue, I’ll present the liberal or left-leaning argument on it, followed by the conservative or right-leaning argument of it.  In a sense, it will be me arguing against myself — I to I, though not eye to eye.  Now, even though I still recall my left-leaning views well, and am well-versed enough at playing devil’s advocate that I can present them in suitable fashion, I will readily acknowledge that because of where I stand now, the right-leaning counter-argument will have a weighted advantage on any given issue.  So, to take a more balanced approach, after posting each blog entry, I’ll invite any of my more liberal-minded friends or acquaintances to guest blog a rebuttal.  My only rules: Keep it civil and under 800 words.  I don’t aim to be writing novels here, and am not inviting others to, either.  The point is to present a given issue through the lens of both left and right, and then let the reader(s) — I so hope there’s more than one — decide what position he finds most persuasive.

 

.

No, I’m not trying to be cute here.  Of course I believe the rightward view will be moreso.  I wouldn’t be standing over here if I didn’t find it so.  And it’s entirely possible, though my goal in doing this is to persuade (that’s persuade, not clobber), it will be an exercise in utter futility.  But the way I look at it is if I manage to give even one person pause, and prompt them to look at an issue from a slightly different perspective, then maybe, maybe my one voice can make a difference of the positive sort.  I aim to try, anyway.

 .

Fool’s Errand

So, the past 24 hours have reignited the abortion-in-the-case-of-rape firestorm. I’m not going to lie — a large part of me would like to see it doused and left for some other time to…..well, I suppose “resolve” might be overly optimistic.  But I’ve felt compelled to speak up this time. And, in the process, I appear to have ruffled a feather or two.  

Ultimately, I’d like to collect my tweets and thoughts on the matter into a more comprehensive essay, but a question was put to me this evening on Twitter that warrants a more immediate answer — one that won’t fit neatly into a 140 character tweet — or even several strung neatly together.  So, I’m going to try to address it here briefly, then hopefully expound upon it as time permits. 

Alright then, to the question: “But you can’t expect a woman to be raped and forced to go through with her pregnancy.”  (Or, I suppose, to make it a proper question, “How can you expect a woman who’s raped to go through with her pregnancy?”)  The answer is easy if one simply dismisses the notion of the life within her as life — or life that holds sufficient value to warrant consideration:  ”You can’t.”  I’ve read all the arguments — even made them myself in days gone by.  How much more compelling a case for terminating a pregnancy can one make than pointing out that a victim of rape should be spared even an ounce of further trauma, if possible?

But what if one doesn’t simply dismiss that notion? What if one believes that all life holds value?  Even life in its infancy?  (Heck, some might even argue that that is precisely when it holds the most value — innocent, full of potential.)  If one holds that belief — that all life has value — then the question becomes what — if anything — trumps that?  What of mine justifies my taking that from you?  The only thing I can come back with is my own life — and even then, not always.  (For instance, if I could save my daughter’s life by sacrificing mine, then I would. In a heartbeat.)  But if we’re considering the notion of you threatening my life (or the life of another), then most would agree, I would be justified in taking yours.

Beyond that, I can think of no justification for taking your life away from you.  Because I do believe that all life holds value, and I do believe that unborn child is a life.  Which is how I can expect a woman who’s raped to go through with her pregnancy. As much as I abhor what was done to her, I abhor the taking of the innocent life which resulted even more.  

In sum, it comes down to the value one assigns to life, and when.  For those who assign little to it, or who only assign value to it after birth, or even viability, terminating it prior will seem justified — even preferred, in the case of rape.  For those who assign much to it, beginning with conception, or perhaps implantation, terminating it will never seem justified, unless it is to save the life of the mother.

I’d say, “and never the ‘twain shall meet,” but folks seem to fall a number of different places along that line.  I’m not naive enough to think I’ll persuade many to my way of thinking.  Then again, I was once over on the other side of things, and yet, here I am.  So, perhaps it is a fool’s errand…to think that by saying these things, I might actually reach a mind or touch a heart.  But I won’t regret trying. 

One thing I’ve often wondered, though, if true compromise were on the table — if those who fall in the “pro-choice” camp were assured that abortion would remain a legal option in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother — how many of them would agree to it?  

Some Quick Thoughts on Today’s Hearing

I was able to watch most of today’s hearing by the Congressional Oversight Committee, and I live-tweeted much of it.  I’d like to write something a bit more substantial on it all once I’ve collected my thoughts, but until then, I’ll use this post to collect my thoughts as I watched today:

“Does the word ‘REQUEST’ mean Request?” #Issa #Libya

“”The correct number” … doesn’t ring true….” #Issa #Libya

Hmmm… 3+2 vs. 5+2 #Libya

Wait – why are we asking about Cairo? #Norton #Libya

I’m going to have to go back & review the transcript of this. Lot of information covered.

#Kucinich weighing in with history lesson.

Wood: “AQ’s presence grows more every day….they are certainly more established than we are.” #Libya

Nordstrom: “We received a Danger Pay Increase.” #Libya

Wood: “There was frustration from the beginning….” #Libya

Nordstrom was told: “You CANNOT request an SST extension.” #Libya

Wood: “It was instantly recognizable to me as a terrorist attack.” #Libya

Safe to say Nordstrom’s not happy with the responses his requests for additional security received. #Libya

Wood: Special Forces Soldiers are well above the abilities of the “backfilling” resources put in their stead. #Libya

Issa’s giving Kennedy no quarter. #Libya

#Kelly isn’t puling any punches. #Libya

The problem, Amb. Kennedy, w your & Amb. Rice’s claims is that they flat out don’t pass the smell test. They didn’t then. They don’t now.

Still can’t follow the logic of the security reduction. #Libya

#Gowdy laying down the boom. #Libya

So Gowdy wants Rice & Carney to testify…. #Libya

#Farenthold w a great question: Are there other embassies similarly situated?

DAS Lamb: If Libya was so volatile, WHY the reduction? #Libya

Was there some sort of pissing match going on btwn DOS and DOD? #Libya

Wood: “Cookie cutter approach.” #Libya

Rorhrabacher to Kennedy: “You’re engaged in stonewalling or a coverup.” #Libya

Sandy Adams gets some names out of Lamb. Nicely done. #Libya

#Adams calls out Kennedy for helping out Lamb. #Libya

Issa points out the exclusion of Fox on the Press Avail. #Libya

Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper
Frmr Regional Security Officer Nordstrom says of State Dept blocking his security requests: “for me the Taliban were inside the building.”

IF Amb. Rice was so concerned about qualifying her comments and protecting them behind “information as we know it” wall, why speculate…that it was a spontaneous response to the video? Why attribute a cause at all?

Dean Clark ‏@earldean71
@SmoosieQ yes, like in a deposition, “I don’t know” is always a great answer.
 SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
@earldean71 They could have run with that for at least a week instead of trotting out the “The video maker acted stupidly” schtick. #BadCall

If *I,* sitting in my family room on 9/16 could see her comments were total BS, how could she not? #ImplausibleDeniability

Also, why did DAS Lamb keep trotting out the “limited resources” bit if, as she acknowledged, this wasn’t about $$?

The logic is lacking. Something drove this reduction in security personnel in spite of the heightened threats. What the hell was it?

RB ‏@RBPundit
@SmoosieQ They were trying to send a signal that everything was fine. It was a tragic error in strategy.

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ

@RBPundit That’s the only thing that remotely makes sense. How they couldn’t see the disaster this could lead to is beyond me.

RB ‏@RBPundit
@SmoosieQ It comes from the mindset that we are the reason the extremists hate us. Our mere presence there incites them, they think.
 SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
@RBPundit Which is especially ridiculous given the call to go into Libya in the first place. #AmateurHour

 

Editing in:  My Tweets in response to the 9/16 Sunday shows:

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ

Already calling BS on Ambassador Rice. The President of Libya says the attacks were planned. Spontaneous my rear.

Liz Mair ‏@LizMair
I have no inside knowledge that enables me to say this definitively, but I have a sneaking suspicion Amb Rice didn’t quite tell whole truth.
Retweeted by SmoosieQ

 

Ellen Carmichael ‏@ellencarmichael
Truly mind-blowing that the Obama Administration is attempting to downplay the severity of what’s going on in ME, chalking it up to video.
Retweeted by SmoosieQ

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
They view us as weak, Madame Ambassador. You aren’t persuasive.

Matt Cover ‏@MattCover
Who decided to have Susan Rice give such air cover to Morsi? Weird.
Details Reply Retweet Favorite

SmoosieQ
‏@SmoosieQ
@MattCover At least McCain is calling BS.

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
@Tenna0 With their RPG’s!!

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
I have to at least give Bob Schieffer credit for having the decency to appear perplexed by Amb Rice’s contradiction of the Libyan President.

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
Dear Ambassador Rice: So…we completely disregard what el-Magerif’s info tells him?

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
El-Magerif: “These attacks were premeditated.” Rice: “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
What would be el-Magerif’s incentive to lie about the attacks being premeditated?

 

SmoosieQ ‏@SmoosieQ
It really sucks when I’m forced to assume it’s OUR leaders who are lying. And for political cover no less.

 

Monica Crowley ‏@MonicaCrowley
Amb Susan Rice this morning still blaming the video for the attacks, claiming they weren’t “premeditated,”& that “we’re not impotent.” #HELP
Details Reply Retweet Favorite

SmoosieQ
‏@SmoosieQ
@MonicaCrowley I find her credibility….lacking.

Don’t Count Your Big Birds Before They’re Hatched

The news is positive this fine sunny Tuesday, four weeks before Election Day:  Romney is still riding high off his rout of Obama at last Wednesday’s debate; poll numbers are shifting in the right direction; certain liberals (and Andrew Sullivan) are edging toward DEFCon 1; and the Obama campaign has resorted to having Muppet proxies fight their battles. (Muppets?  Seriously?!  As I observed last Thursday, I’d rather be clinging to my guns and Bible than a giant yellow Muppet with feathers….)  All this – why, it’s enough to give a fiscally conservative/socially moderate girl (dare I say it?)….hope! 

But, as I also just reminded my Twitter followers: 28 days is an eternity.  There are far too many variables in play, and momentum can turn on a dime.  So don’t let up, don’t lose focus and don’t count your chickens Big Birds before they’re hatched. Stay the course!!  

 

Define Irony

A favorite movie line of mine has long been: “Define irony. Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.”  (That, of course, is delivered by Steve Buscemi’s ghoulish Garland Greene in Con Air.)  I’ve never been entirely certain whether his wry observation truly qualifies as irony, but ’twas certainly humorous. 

So, yesterday, I read this piece by Allahpundit over at Hot Air: “Video: Convention devoted to women celebrates Ted Kennedy unironically”.  It got me to thinking of the many layers of irony to be found in the party being thrown by those great crusaders against the War on Women.  They certainly are plentiful.  

Thought I’d take this opportunity to share one that jumped out and bit me this morning.  The 2012 Democratic Platform includes this delectable little nugget:

President Obama – the son of a single mother and the father of two daughters – understands that women aren’t a special interest group.

This happens to be the first sentence in a four paragraph section entitled “Women.“  Moreover, the platform uses the term “women” 45 times.  (Note: this doesn’t include the singular “woman,” which is also used four or five times.)  How many times does it use the term “men”?  Eight. 

Good thing the Dems understand that women aren’t a special interest group…..

Gillespie – Episode 27

On this week’s episode of Gillespie, Josh and I speak with Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity about their latest ad campaigns and state initiatives - great stuff! 

Then we’re joined by All American Blogger, Duane Lester, to talk about the Todd Akin situation, what lies ahead for Missouri, and what it feels like to be bumped for  Piers Morgan.  Oh, my akin heart.  Errrr….head.  Errrr….both.

Listen to Season 2, Episode 27!