On Matters of Language, Politics and Rham Emanuel

There's a big flap over Rham's comment about the Democrats in Congress when he insulted them by calling them f---ing retards. The current administration prides itself on its intellect and its capacity to think of solutions but the call to remove the word "Retarded" from all the papers of Congress is symbolic at best. Calling the Kennedy's to apologize also struck me as a silly response. He has since sought to make amends by asking that we all draw a black curtain over the word retarded. How about we draw a curtain over the word f---ing? Or over using insults as a substitute for argument?

Now ugly is as ugly says, and Rham certainly meant no respect to those he criticized by his words. But banning words seems largely irrelevant to the true issue; that the Chief of Staff for the President lacks class, tact and a generous heart. If he speaks in private of his allies and his own party in such pejorative terms, imagine what he says about the opposition, any opposition.

Should he lose his job? No.
Do I think he should engage in public self flagellation? Again no and I'm a conservative Republican Catholic mother of a Down syndrome child.
Do I hope he engages in a bit of introspection about his own attitudes towards others in general? Yes.

As the mother of Paul, I don't give too much weight to the idea of no longer saying the medical condition my son actually has. My son has some retardation; it is part of his actual genetic condition. Retardation is I think the reason people fear Down syndrome so much that 90 percent of all diagnosed in utero are aborted. While the range of handicapping is unknown, the reality of that handicapping quality is a given. It is an inescapable fact. I'm not always happy to face this fact, but if I look in his eyes, the fact falls away because it does not matter in the broader context of who my son Paul is.

However I don't think we want a government Republican or Democrat monopolized by the most thinly skinned person in the country.  I don't think we'd like a society where whoever yells "I feel hurt!" gets vindicated and the offender gets marched to the firing lines of public opinion. No.

I think giving full license to that sort of psychological adolescent peevishness will eliminate the capacity not only to communicate and govern but to tolerate being human or being in the presence of other humans.  If we cannot say what we see or mean what we think, if all we can engage in is politically correct edited redacted sanitized for your protection speech, why will we want to speak about anything anywhere at all? It is dulling to the intellect and the heart to live in fear that others will take offense or take over offense.

But since the President reads blogs, I'll offer my 2 cents tax free. Rham, go to the mike. Say the truth. "I was really annoyed with the folks in Congress and I mouthed off. It wasn't my finest hour." and if he wanted to use humor, he could pull a page from Keith Olberman a'la Scott Brown, "I shouldn't have called them what I called them. What I meant to say, was, "They're spineless greedy self absorbed bloated power mad hypocritical preening lost souls who won't do what we want."

Then at least, Rham would be on the same page with all the rest of the American people in his opinion of Congress.

Sound and Fury of a Noisy Gong Show, A.K.A. the White House Press Core Q& A

If you follow the news and there are times when I truely think I shouldn't, you know about the planted Nico Pitney of Huffington Post at the President's press conference the other day asking about a pre-arranged topic of Iran and its people.

My real question is, "Why?"

Did the President not think that he could have asked anyone other than Fox News to ask a question about what the people in Iran were thinking and hoping for? While it's true that there's been no evidence up to now that the White House Press Core were unwilling water carriers, the regulars at such meetings might have been somewhat timerous about broaching such a relevant topic.

However, I'm pretty sure if Rham Emanuel or Robert Gibbs had said it would further the dialogue and agenda set by the administration and handed out the milk bones, there would have been willing closed rank complicity behind the scenes and we'd have never known about the planted blog reporter except as some vast right wing conspiracy.

Instead, we're treated to a bad version of "the play's the thing" where the reporters get to be outraged that someone is playing with them, and that someone lobbed a pre-planned softball. What they're really mad about is, they didn't get picked to throw the ball.

Of course, when the catcher tells the batter what pitch is coming next, one should expect the swing to send it out of the park, but in this case, it was just a pitch and a bunt of a reply, designed to allow all to say, the President addressed this serious issue and the Iranian people with sincerity and thoughtfulness. Anyone not moved probably needs government health care doctors to examine them for possibly missing a heart, a brain, or a soul. Next question. "Who's going to ask me again about that fly?"

Given the level of toadiness of the media, it's hard to understand how a fly got onto the White House grounds. But then the fly did a better job of invoking a genuine response from the President than the whole Press Corp combined.

So I can't think that the President's people didn't have a reason for putting the Huffington Post so prominently in the spotlight in such a blatant way.

Maybe Rham Emanuel won a bet in a late night poker game, or Adrianna needed more traffic on her web site.

Maybe the President is flexing his political muscles to see just how much the American public will swallow to continue believing what they wish to believe. Maybe he's testing the capacity of the bowing devotees with blackberries in hand, to ignore with their own eyes and their own ears, what is presented before them, for what they wish to see.

We just don't know, and given the level of inquisitiveness remaining in the media in general about (not merely this President but all policies proposed), this is likely to be papered over with thousands of glossy overlays of the scandal involving the South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his South American honey.

Was it a big deal to plant a question? Yes and no. The question wasn't even a real biggie. The answer meant even less. But the reason behind it, well that's a real question. Wish we had a real answer.