Supporting Our President
The following is a letter I wrote and sent to our local paper–The Californian. (dated January 17, 2006)
Recently singer Harry Belafonte referred to the President as the world’s greatest terrorist. Why do some celebrities continue to show absolutely no support for our president? I realize that many of the Hollywood elite are card-carrying liberals, but come on—can’t we, as a country , just stand unified in support of one thing?
Many celebrities have a lot of political influence in this country. They want the public to support them in their endeavors, why can’t they support their government? Right or wrong, as our President, George W. Bush deserves the support of the citizens. I’ve got news for Mr. Belefonte and others. My president is your president. You are a citizen in the United States of America and enjoy all the benefits of that citizenship. Support your government.
My letter ended here, but I wanted to add something. I believe that celebrities who are so verbal in their non-support of the government cause potential terrorists to see us as a divided nation, which is horrible. I don’t claim to like everything the government does, but I am not going to stand on my soapbox and down them, because I love living in the land of the free.
Erin Said,
June 29, 2006 @ 9:43 am
I do agree that we should support our government. We need to look like a unified nation and work as one. However, it is not a passive person that get’s action taken. If someone feels so strongly that someone should not be in office, is it not his/her job to speak out about it? Perhaps that speaking out is what gets the attention of the right people? If we all just sat back and never voiced our opinion, what would this country be like? If someone feels that what is going on overseas and even here on our own soil is wrong and feels so strongly that it moves them to voice out about it - I say go ahead. What will make us look unified is our country working as one. Right now, it’s not only the opinions of the President that have us divided… it’s so much more than that.
However (since everything you say regarding the Presidency requires a disclaimer - don’t want to hurt feelings and whatnot) foreigners don’t see the other divides (unless they follow current affairs) they see the President as being the most important thing and if we are divided on that topic it does look bad.
**I’m not saying our president should not be in office, I’m just making a point.
LessIsMore Said,
June 29, 2006 @ 11:30 am
I think there needs to be a clear dividing line between “respect” of the Presidency and “support” for a given President. I will “support” a President if I think he’s “right” but will not support him if I think he’s “wrong.” But in either case, I’ll “respect” the position he holds. It’s like when I was in the military. We were told that our salutes were to the “uniform,” not the person wearing it.
Belefonte is a jerk - not for being critical of the President but for his choice of terms and methods for showing that criticism.
FWIW, I didn’t vote for Bush or Kerry last time around. Given our current state of defacto war, I honestly believed we needed another “Eisenhower” - someone with extensive military experience to sit in the Oval Office. Bush didn’t qualify … and I spent more time in the combat zone than Kerry (hmmm … should I run, hehe?). My vote went to a man who never made it out of the primaries - former General Wesley Clark - a conservative Democrat - who is probably as close to Bush (a liberal Republican) as you can get.
But … for 2008, while I’ve heard rumblings that Clark will run again (his webmaster already has the “Clark2008.com” domain reserved), I might not vote for him. I’ve heard other rumblings … fueled somewhat by a recent article in Modern Maturity magazine (AARP’s pub). While not giving away any secrets (grin), have you noticed how quiet Colin Powell has been lately?
Wendy Said,
June 29, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
I have to disagree with you. Why can’t celebrities express what they feel. You say you love living in the land of the free? How free is it really if you can’t express your true feelings. How can you say that you suppot the president if you truly don’t. That would just be hypocritical don’t you think.
As far as the world, the president is the one responsible if he world sees us so divided, and not individual opinions. I for one will be glad when the president’s term is over.
LessIsMore Said,
June 29, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Wendy,
Are you disagreeing with me or Lorri (grin)? Belefonte and any other celeb is free to express their opinion. But even for a non-celeb, things a person “can” do or say should be tempered by what they “should” do or say. Namecalling is a tactic used by ultra-conservative radio hosts like Michael Savage and ultra-progressive hosts like Randi Rhodes. And in both cases, I find namecalling and personal slurs distasteful and juvenile. Pressing a politician on any given issue can be done forcefully, logically, and tactfully without lowering oneself to the level of a potshot taker.
lorri Said,
June 30, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether it be the President, a ball game or styles. What I am concerned about is “respect” (as LessIsMore posted above) for the man who is in charge of the country’s future> If we keep blabbing about how bad, inept, etc. he is it brings us down to the level of terrorists.
LessIsMore—Are you saying you think Colin Powell will run?
LessIsMore Said,
June 30, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Agreed, Lorri. Logic may or may not win a debate on any issue. But it is the only adult approach possible. If Harry Belafonte takes issue with the President on how he does his job, he should make statements the prove his point … not resort to insults and demeaning remarks.
Believe me when I say that I am no fan of how George W. Bush is doing his job. And, in various forums, I’ve expressed my opinions on “why” I think that way. Never once have I called him a name or resorted to childish innuendo to smear him. And when I hear comments like Belafonte’s, it doesn’t change my opinion about Bush. It merely changes my opinion about Belafonte.
On the last question, Powell is doing the one thing that all Presidential candidates do 2 years before an election … namely, deny he’s interested (grin). But deep down, I suspect he is. And I suspect Republican leadership is cognizant of the charisma Powell exudes. He’s already done the best thing he could do to prepare for the possibility - namely, to resign his post and distance himself from the current administration. And now, he’s exceptionally guarded in his comments about the administration. That’s as it should be.
Due to the low approval ratings for the Bush administration, Democrats see a window of opportunity to recapture the House and Senate … but they’re looking ahead to 2008, too. So far, I can only think of one Democrat I’d vote for - the same one I voted for last time around - General Wesley Clark. Only one person would be equivalent to him in terms of military experience - former General Colin Powell. Given a choice between a Presidential candidate with extensive military experience - and a Presidential candidate with extensive military experience in the Middle East - my choice would be clear. A plus would be if Powell added McCain to his ticket, a war hero in his own right (Vietnam). I don’t think there’s a Democratic ticket possible that could beat a Powell/McCain ticket.
P.S. BTW, I expanded my thoughts on “respect” and put it in my 2nd-to-last blog article here:
http://lessismore.yesdebtfree.org/2006/06/30/the-disrespect-business/
Ari Said,
July 1, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
FWIW, if the economy wasn’t so completely f’d up. I WOULD support Mr. Bush. But no, employment is insane, gas prices are insane, the rich are richer and the poor are in a bigger world of hurt. The middle class shrinks every time we have a Republican in office. Clinton may have been a horndog, but the economy was on fire when he ran the show! So you want me to support having to worry about having to hang on to my job in order to afford one more tank of gas? Sorry pal, but no dice.
lorri Said,
July 1, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Ari—I should have used “respect” instead of support. I believe that the President (no matter what party he represents) should be respected. However, I do not put a lot of faith in politicians. I came of age during Watergate and began to lose faith in politicians then and my opinion hasn’t changed today.
LessIsMore Said,
July 1, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Ari,
It’s “voodoo economics,” hehe. Remember that term? During the latter days of the Carter administration, there was a very high unemployment rate. Reagan promised to lower that rate if he became President. But before Reagan tapped the elder George Bush to run with him, Bush called his policies “voodoo economics.” It’s possible that Reagan tapped Bush just to keep him quiet (grin). This is what the elder Bush meant.
When Reagan took office, unemployment rates dropped substantially. Not that more people were working, though. Reagan merely “re-defined” the word “unemployment.” He did 2 things. First, he ordered that from now on, persons beyond their 26-week base period of benefits (where benefits “ran out”) would no longer be counted in the unemployment rate. Secondly, for the first time in the history of the “unemployment rate,” members of the military were counted among the employed masses. And Eureka! Lower unemployment rates.
Reagan also promised domestic military base closures. And, he kept his promise - in a way (grin). I remember when the Naval Air Station in Fallon, Nevada was closed on Reagan’s order — only to (ahem) re-open a month later as an Air Force base.
One other thing he did was during the time when I worked for a medical insurance company (which is why I remember it). He was disturbed at the high-level of Federal funding being given to state mental institutions. But, he didn’t want to be seen as a killjoy and just cut funding outright. So, he had Health & Human Services “redefine” the word “incompetent” … lowering the IQ level that patients were required to be below in order to be considered incompetent. Eureka! Less funding sent to state mental hospitals. And where did these incompetent people go when the states told them they were no longer considered incompetent? Onto our streets as homeless persons.
It’s amazing what improvements can be accomplished with a little voodoo (grin).
P.S. Check out my most recent blog article titled “The Libertarian Luncheon.” I actually wrote the thing in 1994 … but I think of it as having a timeless quality, hehe.
Ari Said,
July 13, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
There you go! LIM, you missed my forum topic “The difference between irresponsibility and circumstances” I laid it on thick about how our government simply doesn’t give a rat’s hat about it’s constituents. Not the right ones anyway. WHat I mean by that is, a woman who is unmarried can get more and more funding from the government just by lying on her back and getting repeatedly knocked up, whereas a Vietnam Vet who suffers from PTSD in defense of our liberty does not get squat from anybody. So still, I remain intransigent. No dice. The system does not work and some coked-up daddy’s boy will not be getting any respect from me!
TSACGIV Said,
April 8, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
DEAR LORRI I AGREE A 100% WITH ARI.