Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say

It's no mystery why a lot of Americans are disengaged from the news and cynical about politics. It's hard to find a news organization or a politician that will just give people the straight dope and say what they really mean.

Sheep are hard-wired to be led, but it takes a shepherd in possession of some knowledge and the confidence to get out front on the issues to get a majority of the flock to follow into difficult terrain.

To demonstrate the point, I still somehow remember an old story I heard from a political science professor at the University of Alabama who came here from Cuba after Fidel Castro took power there in 1959. In the heady days after the Cuban Revolution and the early days of television and in-door plumbing, Castro took to the tube to explain to the people there exactly how to use a flush toilet.

That's right. Castro explained to the Cuban people how to use a flush toilet to get them all onboard making the country a more sanitary place. I'm assuming the new sewer systems were funded by the old Kremlin, but hey, who cares who pays for it as long as it works.

The point is it was a striking story to the professor, and he told it to his classes to demonstrate how leaders should lead by shooting straight with people and being willing to actually "educate" the masses.

I bring it up this morning because, while the polls are looking up for the Democrats in the upcoming elections in 2006, there is also a danger that the new leaders in the Democratic Party will squander an opportunity to take this country in a "brighter" direction.

Look no further than NBC's Meet the Press, where I just wanted to scream when I saw the disingenuous but so-called "objective" questioning from Tim Russert and the side-stepping answers by the Democratic Party's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

As one prime example, in his act to appear to "nail down" a politician on an issue, Russert asked over and over again if she would support banning "all" political campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Well, that's a stupid question, first of all because it will never happen. In fact, it may not even be Constitutional under the First Amendment.

In her attempt to avoid being nailed down, the best Pelosi could come up with was to say she supports public financing of political campaigns. The problem is, no one, save Ralph Nader, has tried to educate the public and explain exactly how that idea would help diminish the giant corporations' influence on our government and give the public a say in politics once more.

There is no serious proposal on the table in Congress to move to a system of public financing. There should be, but who can explain it and lead the masses to that trough?

Pelosi also dodged the question on whether she would support an impeachment trial for President George W. Bush if the Democrats take back a majority in the House or Senate come November. At least she supports an "investigation," but the public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. A majority of Americans want Bush impeached. So why dance around the issue?

Pelosi even danced around the question for a story in today's Washington Post. Here's the lede.

Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ... said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."

Democrats Plan Probe Of Bush If It Wins the House

Where's the evidence that the Republicans are in trouble?

Look no further than the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

There is growing evidence that Republicans will face a voter turnout problem in the November midterm elections.

The GOP faces not only enormous misgivings among voters about the war in Iraq, which amounts to 70 or 80 percent of President Bush's problems, but also a combination of Social Security, mounting budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Harriet Miers, port security, immigration, gasoline prices and various scandals. History tells us that when one party is either complacent or disillusioned, and the other party is highly motivated, agitated or angry, the results can be devastating to the former while providing boundless opportunities for the latter.

A new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey of 1,003 adults, conducted Thursday through Sunday, showed 36 percent approving of the job Bush is doing and 59 percent disapproving. The results were virtually the same among registered voters....

Studies show that voters in Bush-friendly red states drive significantly more miles each month than those in blue states, and it's a pretty logical assumption that gasoline usage is much greater in the predominately suburban, rural and small town congressional districts most often represented by Republicans, than in more compact, urban districts usually held by Democrats. That means the longer gasoline prices remain high, the worse it will be for GOP candidates.

Also in today's Post, a prominent GOP pollster, who also happens to be a chief architect of the Republicans' 1960s and '70s Southern strategy, says the recent White House shake-up - an attempt to jump-start the administration and boost President Bush's "rock-bottom" approval ratings - are "too little, too late" to "salvage Bush's presidency."

"This administration may be over," Lance Tarrance said last week. "By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over."

He cited the RT Strategies polls, which shows that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance.

Tarrance said it would be extremely difficult for any president to bounce back this late in his administration and reassert influence on Capitol Hill when his approval rating barely exceeds his party's base support and half of all adults surveyed said they "strongly disapprove" of his performance. An overwhelming 73 percent of independents disapprove of Bush's performance, and two-thirds of those "strongly disapprove."

Washington Post story

Back in Alabama

Meanwhile back at the ranch in Alabama, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley picked up another endorsement in her quiet march to become the state's Democratic Party nominee for governor.

Alabama New South Coalition Endorses Baxley for Governor

As reported in a somewhat misleading story by the Montgomery bureau of the Associated Press this week, in the absence of a dramatic acquittal in the Siegelman-Scrushy trial in Montgomery, Baxley will likely face Gov. Bob Riley in the November general election.

The AP story overplayed early expectations about Judge Roy Moore, although as we have reported here before, it is too early to count the Ten Commandments Judge out just yet. Much of his support will be of the "stealth" variety, which is to say they will not show up in the polls.

So what's the lesson for Journalism 202?

If you are a news reporter, ask intelligent questions that get to the point - and don't be afraid to educate your audience. But to take on the mantle of educating an audience is way too much responsibility for today's corporate news media. They might offend an advertiser or stockholder and lose a dollar or two.

A great Southern writer told me not so long ago that he "learns something" every time he reads one of my articles. It was not a compliment, because the philosophy of corporate, objective journalism is never to educate, only to "inform."

But many readers have e-mailed since this Web site came online to say they turn here on a regular basis because it is one of the few places in media-land of any format where they can expect to find "the truth."

As for Political Science 202, politicians should stop being afraid of taking too strong a stand and losing a few votes. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and the flocks will follow you into the promised land - a land where George W. Bush is tried, convicted and removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

If there is a God, God knows Bush has committed enough crimes in his lifetime. Shouldn't he have to pay for a few of them before he heads back to the ranch?