Palin's fear is a poor trait to support

The request by news organizations that was made for Sarah Palin’s emails were a rational inquiry into a person that would like to lead the nation.

One of the many complaints that Palin and her supporters have is that news organizations have not asked for the emails and other documents from other politicians. A quick search on line finds that news organizations have said that they have or are requesting the emails of other officials that are running for offices. If it is true that Palin is being focused on more than others it is because she makes good copy. It will sell papers and get people to log on to news sites to find out the juicy gossip, even if there isn’t much there.

Looking beyond the mere content, the emails provide a glimpse of a profile that is reminiscent of another political leader during the 60’s, President Nixon.

President Nixon was without question paranoid about his political foes and even some of his own people. He, like Palin, thought the “liberal” press was out to get him in ways that they weren’t after others. Nixon’s political base, again like Palin, was partially built on renouncing the liberal press and how they were after him. Also, like Palin, Nixon appealed to patriotic Americans, calling them the silent majority, for support.

Out of the eyes of the press Nixon did many things that demonstrated how far this fear went. As an example, Nixon taped conversations without telling anyone that they were being recorded. Nixon was certain that if you disagreed with him, you were being disloyal to America. He can be heard on the tapes blasting those people.

The most famous example of Nixon’s irrational response driven by fear was Watergate. Nixon may have not planned the break in but he fostered an atmosphere that gave people the idea it would be acceptable. Nixon’s involvement in the cover up provides a clue to someone that is more afraid of the press and the public’s reaction than getting out in front of the truth. It can be argued that if he had just come clean, Nixon may have finished his term.

Palin is not Nixon. But, like Nixon, it does appear she is a politician that fears an open examination of her credentials to lead the free world. If she makes a mistake about a subject, when the press makes an issue about it, instead of coming clean she claims the press is out to get her.

Like Nixon, Palin also divides the nation into two groups. There are patriots and those that are out to destroy America. Her hope is that with the patriots, and those that are fearful of not being called a patriot she will find enough votes win an election. This, rather than developing rational policy that respects all citizen of the community as a basis to govern.

Fear is not a way to live or lead. We need leaders with rational and cool heads. Fear will force the leader to cross the line between a measured response and an irrational assault.

Let’s select leaders based on sensible policy that addresses problems not fearful responses that save the leaders career.

-----

Personal responsiblity in the news this week

Personal responsibility is making head line news this week. Two of the best examples – or worse, depending on your point of view – are Bernie Madoff and Charlie Sheen. 

Let’s start with Madoff. Most of us know that he took billions of dollars from the rich and poor to run his own ponzi scheme. Banks, the government, security firms and other organizations that were suppose to catch this type of criminal activity missed it for many years. The organizations missed it because Madoff was making money for everyone and nobody wanted to risk that changing.

In an interview with Madoff that has received a lot of air play recently, we never hear him say he accepts full responsibility for his actions without conditions. He may say he did the things he is accused of, but says he is a good man. Madoff says that the many people that gave him money enabled made him. Or, that it was just a mistake that he could not get out of. The bottom line is, he is a crook and is right where he belongs, in prison. Those that looked the other way all this time should be there with him.

In another high profile interview, Charlie Sheen never takes full responsibility for any of his actions. He is in his mid forties and has the behavior of an unrestraint teen. Beside his abuse of alcohol and drugs, he has abused his wives, children and friends. (I am using a loose definition for abuse that includes mistreatment and not just physical abuse.) If it wasn’t for his money that enables him to continue his lifestyle, he would be a bum on the street if not in jail. Right now, CBS has cancelled the rest of the season of the show he headlined in, “Two and a Half Men.” The other stars in the show most likely are financially okay. But consider the others that work for the show that are just regular people. They are now out of a job because Charlie is a drunk.

Charlie has a high profile interview being shown on many media outlets. Again, like Madoff and many other people like the two of them, Charlie never takes full responsibility without any conditions. He says that he is a misunderstood person. That people need to see things from his point of view to understand his behavior. But the irony is that his self centered ego doesn’t allow him to see things the responsible way, that he is hurting other people.

In a community, let’s set about being responsible. The two of them certainly are wrong, we can all agree to that. But the reason Madoff did so well is because everyone around him didn’t do the responsible thing of asking questions. The most basic being, how is it you are doing so well when everyone else is not? As for Charlie, the show, “Two and a Half Men” is one of the most watched shows on television. With so many people tuning in each week to see Charlie act out his real life, all of us have enabled him to continue abusing the people around him. Stop watching the show and CBS will replace it with something else.

A responsible community can set a goal of a safe environment. But, unless people accept responsibility for their actions; not only after, but before; the community will never be able to fully achieve that goal.

-----

Who Will Decide the Truth for Voters

Sinclair Broadcasting thinks they have the responsibility to do just that.

Television Station WPGH in Pittsburgh, owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, pulled a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad this week. The station management did not return phone calls to news organizations requesting comment on the issue. Other stations in the market said they would continue to air the commercial as scheduled.

Kent Gates, a political adviser for Tim Burns, the Republican candidate who is the target of the pulled ad, says that it, "falsely claims Tim Burns supports a 23 percent national sales tax and wants to ship jobs overseas." Burns is running against Democrat Mark Critz in a special election last Tuesday, May 18, 2010, for the late John Murtha's seat. Some sources that are familiar with both the station and the Republican campaign claim that FactCheck supports the claims by the Burn’s campaign.

FactCheck also states that both sides are airing ads that are "chock full of false and misleading claims." But, of all the ads that are being aired and run in the market, only Sinclair pulled the Democratic supported commercial.

But, is the community best served by having the media determine what we see and what we don’t in a political campaign?

It is the voter that ultimately must decide what is important. To have a media outlet determine for the voter what is fact sets up the opportunity to have corporations choose what goes on the air based on a political point of view they may support. (While FactCheck, the website that Sinclair appears to have used to support their action, also said other commercials where wrong, yet, Sinclair didn’t withdraw those commercials. This indicates that the broadcaster took a position in the election.) FactCheck.org, as an example, doesn’t ask for commercials to be removed or force commercials off the air, they research the statements and provide supporting evidence for their conclusions. Voters can go to web sites like FactCheck for their own research. Additionally, it will help the voter decide who to vote for by knowing what outrageous claims are being made by candidates.

In the end, the collective intelligence of a well informed community about all sides of a political decision is better than one that is receiving filtered information. Sinclair Broadcasting didn’t serve their community in an open and fair way by refusing to air a commercial that didn’t support their own political position.

But, apparently, the voters saw through all of that. Mark Critz, the Democrat, won the election, not the candidate that Sinclair supported.