Looking for Keith's blog or transcript.....

[Catchawave]

...and believe me, I've been googling my brains out, not to mention searching his MSNBC archives....

Anyhow, there was a blog/transcript where he addressed something like...bush not deserving our respect for the office of president...and it was great !

DUer Will Pitt is trying to start a movement for our Dem congressmen to walk out on the SOTU. You may have seen his posts on the home page. Alot, but not most, replies from DUers said that would be disrepectful to the Office of President, and why I thought of Keith's comments.

I'm pushing for a real Political Theater, rather than suffer from the MSM focusing on Hillary's close-ups of bored and pissed off expressions (like last year).

Whether you agree with Will or not, I'd still like to share Keith's prospective on respect for the Office of President.

Thanks guys :hi:

[Catchawave]

1. Link to Pitt Post :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2384349#top

[Berry Cool]

2. It's from the "City of Louisiana" blog/editorial, 9/5/05:

For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been — as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be — whether or not I voted for this President — he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government — our government — "New Orleans."

For him, it is a shame — in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. "The responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament "for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."

In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage itself — it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.

The complete text of "The 'City' of Louisiana" can be found (with some scrolling down) at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514671/

[Catchawave]

3. Thanks Berry !!!!

I was so close. How could I forget the link to Katrina. I just got goosebumps re-reading this blog.....:hug:

[Berry Cool]

4. Me too.

It doesn't mention "respect," per se, but it does say what I think stuck in your mind: that as much as we may not like the man in the Office of the President, he is still "our" President, so we are supposed to acknowledge that much--or so we are taught. Now, it is impossible for many people who were willing to grant that much to even call him "our President" anymore.

It also mentions the issue of trust, which I think is important. Let's remember, the reason that president is now justifying his secret wiretaps on the American people is that he feels he is obligated by the terms of his office to "protect" them. The "'City' of Louisiana" editorial cut right to the bone on the subject of protection. Keith asked: How is the current White House administration, which was reelected on the promise that it could protect us from terrorism, to be trusted and believed if it cannot even protect us from standing water?

Today, Keith might ask (that is, if he ever feels like BLOGGING again): These people couldn't protect us from standing water...and now they say they have to wiretap our phone conversations in order to protect us?

Edited to make that first paragraph clearer...it was muddly.

[Catchawave]

5. Posted to the latest thread at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2384349&mesg_id=2384349

With much appreciated credit for your help !

...and Keith's :loveya: