Have Your Say Every Day.
Free Republic Runs ONLY On Your Donations.
Make Yours NOW and End the FReepathon!
Posted on 05/11/2011 6:38:46 AM PDT by lwd
After watching President Obama's television interview on CBS' 60 Minutes -- by far his most presidentially impressive event to date -- I began thinking about how differently we perceived our presidents back in the days when radio ruled the waves.
Specifically, I thought about two radio events -- and what they allowed us to "see" a bit more clearly -- about our presidents and ourselves.
The first event was the most fascinating fact about America's first televised presidential campaign debate, the 1960 meeting of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon: People who saw it on television told pollsters Kennedy won the debate, but those who heard it on radio were convinced Nixon had won.
The debate's radio listeners, un-diverted by visual distractions (JFK's Hollywood handsome looks; Nixon's five-o'clock stubble and sweating upper lip), focused only on but what was said.
And that thought led me to dial back just a bit more and recall a unique primetime radio drama show called "Mr. President." Each week, on ABC Radio from 1947-53, the show portrayed a crucial event in a past presidency. But the shows never mentioned the president's name -- everyone called him "Mr. President" -- until the show's final line. Then he was referred to by name.
Radio audiences were invited to guess the president's name before it was revealed. With no visual guideposts -- no wigs, no beards, no fashions -- to hint at the era, listeners focused solely on spoken words.
Last Sunday night, President Obama was strong, resolute and every bit the commander-in-chief you'd typecast for the part by voice alone. He de-briefed America on the events that got Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
He talked straight with his fellow citizens: "At the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation. I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been significant consequences."
He said some top advisers opposed sending U.S. troops on the mission: "...every time I sit down in the Situation Room, every one of my advisors around there knows I expect them to give me their best assessments. And so the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper..."
He wasn't about boasting or swaggering, in deciding against releasing graphic photos of the al Qaeda terrorist leader's corpse: "You know, that's not who we are. You know, we don't trot out this stuff as trophies. ...we don't need to spike the football. And I think that given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."
He praised the Navy SEALs, the CIA and the work of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
On the screen, Obama was, by every measure, the gold standard of a commander-in-chief. As I watched, I began wondering not about the millions of proud Americans, but the small percentage among us who have been those loud, vicious Obama haters. Not the opposition leaders who praised Obama. But I wondered what the bigots in our midst, who mocked his race and disputed his religion are really thinking now.
And mainly: What would Obama haters have thought if, before the last election, we could have played a radio-only version of Sunday's 60 Minutes interview -- with the chief executive only referred to as "Mr. President?" What would the haters have thought upon hearing that decisive admirable commander-in-chief?
With their eyes seeing nothing to hate, and their ears hearing lots to love, Obama haters could have come away thinking, deep down: "This is my kind of commander-in-chief!" (Until, of course, they actually saw who they were cheering.)
Tomorrow, unrepentant Obama haters will still be surfing our talk radio waves and clogging our blogs with their venomous stuff.
But the rest of us -- in the news media as well as the electorate -- need to keep reminding each other that the politics of hate must have no home in the U.S.A. (Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail him at martin.schram(at)gmail.com.)
I see the press is not all that thrilled that dear leader only got a 2 point bump for the seal’s taking out bin Laden.
He is so Presidential, the ingrates just do not understand.
Ha Ha Ha
That's funny Marty.....I don't recall you, or any of your ilk, reminding each other of that during the Bush years. OH, WAAAAIT......that was in the past. Ok, I get it.....douche.
Perhaps Schram’s slobbering would diminish a tad were he to read this: Why the Hurry?
The president should have given intelligence analysts more time.
http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest
He should tell that to his fellow Democrats.
The good old Soviet days, the good old Mao days, the good old PolPot days, the good old Ceausescu days, same as good old 5ive minutes ago during the Obama regime.
….Oh yeah, I forgot, there wasn’t any…
Free Republic Runs ONLY On Your Donations.
Make Yours NOW and End the FReepathon!
Oh, so if you didn’t watch one particular show on See BS, then you’ll never hear ZeroBomba give praise to the Seals & GW Bush again...Is that the message here?
This fellow had a program on public television and wrote a book "Avoiding Armageddon" which aired just before the leftist media went big on "No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". He claimed to have found Saddam burying things in the desert. Haven't read his book, but it is likely in there too. As far as I can tell there was not a squeak out of him on this subject in support of the regime change in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.