Profound Pontifications

Should media hosts allow their guests with clear political agendas to regurgitate or even introduce their obviously unproductive “talking points”? This was the question that occurred to me while the nation muddled through the recent Senator Reid debacle. While the nation huddled around this non-issue from the freshly-available novel, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the REAL issues in the book received little scrutiny. Hell, even I had to weigh in with an article on the Reid issue just to set the record straight.

One of the REAL issues in the book were former President Bill Clinton’s alleged remarks to the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy – referring to then-Senator Barack Obama – that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Another REAL issue was the allegation that the Democratic leadership RECRUITED a hesitant Barack Obama to run for President, fearing a loss by Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election.

So my question is this: Given the wasted time and effort taken on Sen. Reid’s remarks – to the extent that America is now tired of talking about the book, Game Change – should the media even allow such red-herring issues to be discussed? Should they cut off the “talking points” the way Ed Schultz of MSNBC is prone to do? Wasn’t the coverage of Reid’s comments along-side of the relatively sparse coverage of the REAL issues in the book politically orchestrated to soften the blow of the REAL issues? And didn’t the ploy succeed? Isn’t America now so tired of hearing about Game Change that the REAL issues are destined to receive little scrutiny? If more media personnel were like Ed Schultz, wouldn’t we waste less time on the trivial? And is it any wonder that Mr. Schultz has been recently courted for a political career? Since the politicians have a hard time beating him, does it surprise anyone that recruitment would be a strategy employed? What are your thoughts?

While I can certainly respect the President’s desire for bipartisanship, the tactics of the right make it clear that it isn’t possible in today’s political climate. I truly understand the desire to tout any legislation as inclusive, but politics is a dirty game.

President Obama still has the mindset of a commUNITY organizer. He still wants his “kumbaya” moment. Although this is honorable, it isn’t practical in politics. I would imagine that he decided to run for office after surmising that the powers that be had their own selfish agendas that didn’t include their constituencies — the ones they IDEALLY work for. I’m sure that he felt he could get more done from the inside. NOW he has to understand that this new circle he is in is STILL proliferated with the selfsame people who did little for the Chicago folks that he represented as a commUNITY organizer.

Even worse, his catering to the other side — most outrageously, his support of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter — has alienated Congressmen on the left. This whole desire for compromise when it wasn’t necessary has led to a very tenuous ability to pass a bill that includes a much-needed public option. I fear that, as a result, the American people are going to end up with a mere face lift, a facade of a reform — reform in name only. President Obama needs to be more forceful — become, in the words of President-Select George W. Bush, “the decider“. He needs to tell Congress that he will sign absolutely NO BILL, outside of a budgetary one, until and unless he gets the public option health-care reform bill the American people deserve. Am I wrong to feel this way?