The Spectacle Blog
Jed and Dave,
Reagan created the radio address, writing the scripts himself quite often, as I understand. He aimed at evoking the spirit of FDR, and, being Reagan, he succeeded. Ever since, no President has felt secure enough to stop doing it, though nowadays I truly see no point in it.
There's a certain style of pitch-black humor -- one often encounters it among Eastern Europeans of a certain age -- that seems to sustain people caught under illiberal thumbs. Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh serves up a classic slice:
There was a solidarity rally in front of the Danish embassy in Washington. The rally was led by Christopher Hitchens. I'm thinking of organizing the same rally in Cairo. I just need 70 bodyguards, 3 armored humvees, plenty of tear gas, and 3 helicopters to immediately airlift the participants in case things got nasty. If you would like to participate please register your name by sending an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Jed, I agree with your point below. But this gives me an occasion to express my bafflement over the President's radio address. In my few years, never once have I been surfing the radio dial on a Saturday and found the President opining. Maybe some older (by older, I mean that Reagan was president when I was born) AmSpecBloggers can shed some light: was the President's radio address once regularly and widely broadcast? Is this an anarchronism, now only useful for slow-news weekends and sound-bite excerpts?
Well, we've had a busy week, haven't we? One of Shia Islam's principal shrines has been blown up, a port operator from an Islamic nation is about to take control of six American ports, the Philippines is in a state of emergency and -- surprise, surprise -- Hamas is going to get buckets of money for its terrorist government. With all this going on, you'd think that ol' Dubai Dubya would say something about them in his weekly radio address tomorrow, right? But nooooo.
I can assure you, your expectations will remain unfulfilled. Can't say what's in the embargoed release, but I can assure you of what isn't: ports, Iraq and pretty much everything that's important. The wartime leader we saw ever so briefly last fall has again benched himself. This is not a matter of going wobbly: it's the functional equivalent of abdication.
Nice turnout for the Danish Solidarity rally today, including two of your AmSpecBlog correspondents, James Poulos and myself. Christopher Hitchens was there, of course, along with Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, Cliff May, Tony Blankley, and occasional TAS contributor Sean Higgins. Afterwards James and I joined Andrew, Hitch, and Richard Miniter (plus the female companions of the latter two) for a long lunch, during which I learned how far people had come for the event: One woman drove up from North Carolina, and an Iraq War veteran came in from California.
From the state capital that is only served by two-lane highways (imagine the legislative implications of that!), a Republican state legislature and governor are about to put their money where their mouths are on Roe and ban abortion except in cases where it's necessary to save the mother's life. It's great news, and the legislators and governor should be commended for their courage.
The Bush administration's PR failure in regard to the Dubai ports deal has reached a new height. The President just finished a major address to the American Legion this morning on the global war on terror. With such a stage and wide media coverage, that would have been a perfect setting to make his case a little. While one wouldn't expect a war on terror speech to go defensive on the ports deal, Bush had a golden opportunity to say something positive about UAE's role in the effort and go on the offense against the critics. But not a word about the subject on everyone's mind. Returning to the regular war on terror nostrums is admirable, and something the President should regularly do anyway. But wishing that something isn't a crisis doesn't make it so.
Get them some Maalox!
So Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to Amb. John Negroponte complaining about White House leaks to Bob Woodward.
Why would Rockefeller be so uptight? Perhaps because he senses the FBI is locking in some of his loyalists in the NSA and overseas prison leaks? Things are going to be getting interesting for a number of folks on Capitol Hill in the coming days.