Notes From All Over – thru May 24

Comment here on the Notes From All Over for the past week.

We’ve numbered the comments for your convenience.

19 comments for “Notes From All Over – thru May 24

  1. #33. “Former” Mormon? I thought Randy Bachman was still Mormon. It’s his son Tal who is outspokenly “former”.

  2. #6 – “Above all, listen to those who know. Heed Dick Morris or Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich,”

    Heh, yeah, keep listening to these guys, a disgraced former speaker of the House and the Architect who saw the Republican party go from being in charge to the weak minority party it is today. And Dick Morris? Really? These three guys cling to the past like it was their mother.

    #9 – I never thought to see that word on Times and Seasons.

  3. The biggest story of the week has to be the nomination of Huntsman (#s 32, 34, 41, 42, 48) and the fallout from that decision.

    Second, I’d have to say is the continuing Yettaw/Suu Kyi trial (#s 2, 16, 22).

    But there are a lot of the others that I’m fascinated with. What do you make of #13 – the Deseret News’ failures to look at both sides of an issue?

  4. What do you make of #13 – the Deseret News’ failures to look at both sides of an issue?

    The source is up a tree on this one. When the DesNews published accurate statements demonstrating the falsity of the other side (that the Church had not disclosed all contributions in a timely manner), why should they continue to cover the statements of the other side as if those complaints had any merit? This wasn’t a gray area or a matter of debate; an objective look at the calendar provided all the coverage necessary.

  5. Ardis, perhaps I read the Columbia Journalism Review article a little differently than you. I understood it to say that the Deseret News NEVER included the statements of the other side.

    Even so, my (admittedly limited) understanding of journalistic practice makes me think that if you bring up one side of a controversy, you really ought to bring up the other also. If you have already answered those allegations, then why bring up the defense repeatedly also?

    If the matter is settled, then indeed its settled. If it isn’t and you need to bring up the defense again, then you really ought to present the other side’s claims also.

  6. Dan (#2), Occasionally it would be nice if you made the pretense of objectivity. You invariably sound like a one man Democratic Party propaganda machine.

    Agree or disagree with his policies, Newt Gingrich, for example, was one of the most influential political leaders of the last century, largely responsible for architecting the first Republican House majority in forty years.

  7. Mark (8), you are absolutely right. I don’t care for Gingrich’s policies at all. But when he still appears on Jon Stewart’s show, a decade after he left congress, you have to admit that he still today has influence.

  8. Kent, you may have been able to read more of the article than I could, since I’m not a subscriber to the particular journal, but the “controversy” was solely about whether the Church had disclosed its contributions by the federally mandated date. The “other side” kept insisting that the Church was not timely in its disclosures. Since “timeliness” is defined by the law, which required the Church to disclose its contributions by a specific date, which date was met by the Church, there really was no debate, no argument to discuss, no “other side.” The date was what it was, and was objectively verifiable by anyone with a current calendar. Requiring any newspaper to give space to whiners who can’t read a calendar is ridiculous.

  9. Mark,

    I am objective. I honestly believe that for the Republican party to improve, they need to expunge Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of those kinds of characters from their party. They need to listen to the words of the John Huntsmans, the Colin Powells and the Tom Ridges of the Republican party. Anyone who suggests that for the Republican party to heal and get better they should listen to the likes of Newt just doesn’t get it. The more you stick with those characters, the more the Republican party will fail and remain in the wilderness, or be detrimental for the progression of our country. It is a very objective view. I want a strong, healthy Republican party. Newt, Karl and Dick messed up the party. That they remain the leaders speaks volumes about the future of the party. That Republicans still think these characters should lead speaks volumes about the regular lay member of the Republican party. You guys don’t get it. It is because of people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich that you lost!

  10. Dan (11), I don’t have the sense that Gingrich, in particular, was part of the strategy and efforts of the Republican party since before the 2000 race. When he lost his postion in Congress, it seemed like the Republican’s were no longer listening to him.

    Am I wrong?

  11. Kent,

    Gingrich has been close to the Republican leadership the whole time. He was a strong supporter of Bush, rarely if ever criticizing him, and a strong proponent of much of what the Republicans have run on over the past eight years that brought them down. He has shown here and there that his views vary from the general Republican propaganda, but there’s no question that he is tied to that brand of Republicanism that lost the last two elections for them.

  12. 13. Mmmm, gotta take issue with that one. Gingrich criticized Bush repeatedly, especially on illegal wiretapping and the management of the Iraq war.

    I am mostly just a lurker here, and even I have noticed your need to drop-kick anything resembling conservatism in almost every post you type (for example, just the other day w/ the pbs post…somehow you managed to squeeze in glenn beck with that one).

  13. Amy,

    Newt Gingrich has been at the forefront of the War in Iraq and a close confidante of Donald Rumsfeld. He and Rumsfeld were the ones that pushed for the smaller, lighter force (you know, the one that let Bin Laden get away, and the one that failed to protect the peace after the capitulation of Saddam’s rule in Iraq). Newt Gingrich is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, currently the leader in neo-conservative political thought, and also the place where the disgraced former Vice President chose to take swipes at the current President not a week ago. To say that the Republican party should listen to a guy like Gingrich to improve the Republican party is just plain wrong.

    And yes, I am quite angry at the Republican brand. Everyone should be, frankly. They really really really messed up! That they continue to think that they must double down on their failed principles deserves scorn. And I will happily oblige.

  14. Come on, Amy, they are totally related. PBS hosts Sesame Street; and Glenn Beck is a lot like an Evil Teletubby. What could be more on-topic?

  15. Dan, you sound like those who in the 1940s and 50s suggested that conservatism were dead. Just as they were wrong (yeah, Goldwater lost in 1964, but so did Rockefeller that year, and every other year in which he ran for President).

    I don’t disagree that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney should go quietly into that good night. But I don’t think that the Republican Party should cease to have a strong conservative wing. Jon Huntsman (or even John Huntsman, whoever he is) and Colin Powell and Tom Ridge are not the men to provide leadership for the party–if there is to be any hope of a conservative revival. Maybe there’s a Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan waiting somewhere to enter the stage. And, that would be stage right.

  16. Mark,

    That’s fine. If there is someone further to the right of the Jon Huntsmans (sorry for the misspelling) of the world but who doesn’t cling to the failed policies of these past eight years, that’s perfectly fine. The current crop (Cheney, Gingrich, Rove) won’t serve the Republican party well at all. They must be shunned.

  17. By the way, just to point out that I’m not off the mark in terms of deriding the current path of the Republican party, just look at the “talking points” that the white male overlords of the Republican party are using today to attack America’s first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. The white males are calling her a racist!

    Now, if your goal is to improve the standing of the Republican party, does it make ANY SENSE to call Sotomayor a racist? Do the white Republican males really want to further alienate the fastest growing segment of the American population like this? Do they even realize how hypocritical they sound? They never asked these kinds of questions of Samuel Alito, whose resume closely resembles Sonia Sotomayor’s. They never asked whether Alito’s status as a white male would influence his decisions on the court.

    These talking points come from the very people Mr. Jeffrys says the Republican party should listen to in order to improve. Newt Gingrich is at the forefront of calling Sotomayor a racist. So is Glenn Beck, who said some pretty awful things toward her today.

    Is this really the direction regular lay members of the Republican party want to go? If so, can you really blame someone like me for being highly derisive of the Republican party?

Comments are closed.