The Dixie Chicks are just one of the many faceless, inconsequential, and, by the way, liberal groups of ingrates who squander the American public's gift of a second chance.
America offers forgiveness but rarely; activist liberals ruin their second chances every time by mistaking mercy for some hint of weakness and re-offending every they perceive the public letting its guard down.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Chicks-ee Dix-ee
I don't follow the Dixie Chicks much (except for the political trouble they had not long ago) and I didn't watch more than a glimpse of the Grammy Awards show.
But the media's video bites which reviewed the Dixie Chicks' attitude during their acceptance appearances seemed extremely odd to me.
I think the Chicks have mistaken their amazing luck, to be offered forgiveness and a second chance in the market, as some kind of national apology from the fans.
I have no doubt that NOBODY, outside of the lead singer of Dixie Chicks, believes that version of things as they are.
I have no doubt the Chicks are delighted to have rehabilitated their career and made a comeback. The political skirmish was years ago, and Americans have settled our views and moved on. It was the Chicks who did the catching up with the times, even playing up their own past disgrace with a hit single, generic enough to be a mainstream country hit, about not being "ready to make nice." "Tears in My Ears" had nothing on this Chicks hit song.
The mouthy one's mimicking of the Simpsons' "Ha-ha" at the Grammy awards microphone was bizarre, considering that the Grammy vote is tiny and insular, and considering that nothing has changed for them in the real world except that a lot of listeners were just starting to get over their irritation.
Practically everybody in the world who voted those Grammy Awards to the Dixie Chicks WERE IN THE THEATER on awards night -- a theater not much bigger than most Midwestern "girls gyms," where countless small-time sock hops have determined the success or failure of local romances for decades.
That's all.
And the Grammy show wasn't the Grand Ole Opry, folks. It was an auditorium in true-blue Los Angeles, California.
So, a few thousand record industry liberals vote an act called the Dixie Chicks some awards as a political statement.
Then the Chicks nearly snatch defeat from the jaws of their comeback by militantly misinterpreting a one-night theaterful of blue-state Grammy voters as a nationwide vindication of their dead-horse politics.
As I said: Odd. Bizarre. And that's the generous summation.
The Chicks would have done far better if they had accepted their awards with humility, grace -- and no little measure of gratitude for the unusual second chance -- without the sour grapes, and just been thankful an audience took them back for another album.
When one foot finally heals is not the time to shoot yourself in the other foot.
But the media's video bites which reviewed the Dixie Chicks' attitude during their acceptance appearances seemed extremely odd to me.
I think the Chicks have mistaken their amazing luck, to be offered forgiveness and a second chance in the market, as some kind of national apology from the fans.
I have no doubt that NOBODY, outside of the lead singer of Dixie Chicks, believes that version of things as they are.
I have no doubt the Chicks are delighted to have rehabilitated their career and made a comeback. The political skirmish was years ago, and Americans have settled our views and moved on. It was the Chicks who did the catching up with the times, even playing up their own past disgrace with a hit single, generic enough to be a mainstream country hit, about not being "ready to make nice." "Tears in My Ears" had nothing on this Chicks hit song.
The mouthy one's mimicking of the Simpsons' "Ha-ha" at the Grammy awards microphone was bizarre, considering that the Grammy vote is tiny and insular, and considering that nothing has changed for them in the real world except that a lot of listeners were just starting to get over their irritation.
Practically everybody in the world who voted those Grammy Awards to the Dixie Chicks WERE IN THE THEATER on awards night -- a theater not much bigger than most Midwestern "girls gyms," where countless small-time sock hops have determined the success or failure of local romances for decades.
That's all.
And the Grammy show wasn't the Grand Ole Opry, folks. It was an auditorium in true-blue Los Angeles, California.
So, a few thousand record industry liberals vote an act called the Dixie Chicks some awards as a political statement.
Then the Chicks nearly snatch defeat from the jaws of their comeback by militantly misinterpreting a one-night theaterful of blue-state Grammy voters as a nationwide vindication of their dead-horse politics.
As I said: Odd. Bizarre. And that's the generous summation.
The Chicks would have done far better if they had accepted their awards with humility, grace -- and no little measure of gratitude for the unusual second chance -- without the sour grapes, and just been thankful an audience took them back for another album.
When one foot finally heals is not the time to shoot yourself in the other foot.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Pelosi Undercuts Democrats' Invested Mantra that We Need More Troops in Iraq
I did an amused triple-take when I heard that nouveau House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced she "might" block a call for a troop surge in Iraq. It looks like she is already being forced by her party to backpedal on that language.
For years, the Democrats have owned the argument, the insistence that we need more troops to get the job done right, apparently in hopes of looking more hawkish (and therefore more electable) compared to Republicans.
I remember their incessant harping on the idea because I wondered if it didn't secretly gall them to be the party of more troops (but then I remembered Democrats were in the White House as the Viet Nam war expanded and became a grinder for American GIs). I doubted they were sincere about it, but they committed themselves beyond anyone's ability to forget.
Now we are supposed to believe that anyone but Pelosi would be blamed if she were to make this anything more than a pointless bluff? I hardly think so.
Even if the press is as liberal as Ann Coulter says it is, there are still plenty of reporters, tv producers and analysts willing to remind the American people what Democrats have been saying about more troops in the last several years to make Pelosi's political posturing very transparent and fairly devoid of sincerity or compassion.
If this tiny tempest lasts more than a week, expect to start seeing file tape of Democrats with long faces and furrowed brows saying that if they were making the decisions, more troops would be dispatched ASAP.
If I were president, I'd be very inclined to say, fine, Ms. Pelosi, if you want to go against your own party line AND the commission's recommendations, be my guest. I'll take your advice in a spirit of cooperation and hold the line at the present level on your counsel.
Pelosi seems curiously anxious to climb onto the hot seat. I wouldn't turn up the burner on her, but I wouldn't exactly run to turn it off in this case.
These are our troops she's playing politics with.
I'm already wondering if the Democrats understand what the voters expect of them, and whether they'll surrender to their predictable compulsions and blow it by '08. If I had to place a bet, I'd remember history and bet against liberal zealotry.
Maybe the top tier hasn't received the memo about how the moderates (aka, those who are more conservative) are the new pop stars of their party? More likely, they don't give a damn about the new moderates. Regardless of party you may be able to see the truth in that scenario.
For years, the Democrats have owned the argument, the insistence that we need more troops to get the job done right, apparently in hopes of looking more hawkish (and therefore more electable) compared to Republicans.
I remember their incessant harping on the idea because I wondered if it didn't secretly gall them to be the party of more troops (but then I remembered Democrats were in the White House as the Viet Nam war expanded and became a grinder for American GIs). I doubted they were sincere about it, but they committed themselves beyond anyone's ability to forget.
Now we are supposed to believe that anyone but Pelosi would be blamed if she were to make this anything more than a pointless bluff? I hardly think so.
Even if the press is as liberal as Ann Coulter says it is, there are still plenty of reporters, tv producers and analysts willing to remind the American people what Democrats have been saying about more troops in the last several years to make Pelosi's political posturing very transparent and fairly devoid of sincerity or compassion.
If this tiny tempest lasts more than a week, expect to start seeing file tape of Democrats with long faces and furrowed brows saying that if they were making the decisions, more troops would be dispatched ASAP.
If I were president, I'd be very inclined to say, fine, Ms. Pelosi, if you want to go against your own party line AND the commission's recommendations, be my guest. I'll take your advice in a spirit of cooperation and hold the line at the present level on your counsel.
Pelosi seems curiously anxious to climb onto the hot seat. I wouldn't turn up the burner on her, but I wouldn't exactly run to turn it off in this case.
These are our troops she's playing politics with.
I'm already wondering if the Democrats understand what the voters expect of them, and whether they'll surrender to their predictable compulsions and blow it by '08. If I had to place a bet, I'd remember history and bet against liberal zealotry.
Maybe the top tier hasn't received the memo about how the moderates (aka, those who are more conservative) are the new pop stars of their party? More likely, they don't give a damn about the new moderates. Regardless of party you may be able to see the truth in that scenario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
