Put a stop to grandstanding

One of the hardest things for an op-ed columnist to do is decide what to write about each week.

Some columnists, like Ann Truong, write about topics of local or community interest—in this case, SMU being the community. Ann is not an exception. Dallas Morning News columnists often write about local topics of importance to its readers.

I, on the other hand, usually choose topics with a national or international scope: the presidency, the War in Iraq, etc. Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of events inside such a large beat—to borrow a journalistic term.

A columnist could easily write a different column every day about Iraq. Unfortunately there’s a whole lot going on that deserves—demands—comment. And this week was no exception: Thirty-six soldiers—the largest one-day number since the war began—died yesterday in two separate incidents.

This will be the third column I’ve written this week. I say “will” because technically I haven’t finished it yet. There’s no assurance that I will finish it.

Between the Rice and Gonzales confirmation hearings, the upcoming election in Iraq, Congress and the almost daily fumble(s) by the White House—after all, that’s what caused me to abandon my last column—there’s no telling what could cause me to punt and start a new column.

My first column was about SpongeBob SquarePants. More specifically the recent accusation made by Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, that SpongeBob was gay…or that he was pro-gay. I’m not really sure which, probably both.

Some of you may remember the same hullabaloo being raised a few years ago by Dr. Jerry Falwell concerning Tinky-Winky. It seems that Mr. Falwell thought that just the purple Telletubby was gay, because Tinky-Winky was purple, the “gay” color and, of course, because he carried a purse.

Anyway, in my article I outed all the cartoon figures I could think of, using the specious and lunatic logic of Evangelicals: Bugs Bunny, Daffy and Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Kermit the Frog, Batman and Robin and Bert and Ernie. Hey, what mother hasn’t had to field some tough questions from their 4-year-old son or daughter about those two?

Then I read that another good-ol’ boy senator had decided to reintroduce a marriage amendment. It really doesn’t matter who. Their motives are all the same. It’s grandstanding, pure and simple.

Even President Bush signaled recently that he did not plan to pursue last year’s failed Federal Marriage Amendment. After all, now that he’s been re-elected, he has no reason to grandstand. I also pointed out that W actually began to soften his position even before the election, pointing to comments he made during a late October interview expressing support for civil unions.

That underreported interview was carefully aimed at gay Republicans who had decided to vote for Kerry. It probably worked. Exit polls showed that Bush received about the same percentage of gay votes as he did in 2000.

In keeping with the outing theme, I outed President Bush—so to speak—for being a flip-flopper and soft on same-sex marriage. That’s right. Mr. Hardline, Take-no-Prisoners, Tough-on-Terror is a big softy on gay rights. He’d never admit it though. To borrow one of “GW’s” favorite catchphrases: “It wouldn’t be prudent.”

Then, the proverbial ink on that column hadn’t even dried when I read an article exposing yet another journalism payola scheme involving this administration—there’s one of those fumbles I alluded to earlier.

Most of you might remember the recent revelation that conservative African-American commentator Armstrong Williams had accepted—in violation of federal law—$240,000 from the Department of Education to promote the president’s No Child Left Behind program.

I mention Mr. Williams’ race only because it’s germane. Mr. Williams was chosen because of his influence within the black community. The strategy being that a Bush-friendly African-American would have greater success hawking the president’s educational initiative than a white journalist.

While the White House was struggling to come up with a satisfactory spin on Armstrong-gate, the Washington Post reported today that another journalist, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, was paid $21,500 in 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote another White House initiative: a welfare reauthorization bill that diverted funds from job training and child care into marriage-promotion programs.

In the National Review Online, Gallagher wrote, “The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples” and “educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage,” adding that the program could “carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children.”

Hours following the columnist’s admission—and backhanded apology—of her ethical lapse, which, she said, “was not really anything near” the Williams’ controversy, Bush denounced the practice. “I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn’t go forward. There needs to be independence,” he stated.

Who knows how much taxpayer money has been spent by this administration to promote other programs. One thing is clear: It’s sleazy. Does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense? No more or no less than anything President Clinton did, which—whatever “it” was—did not involve paying people to promote propaganda posing as propitious public policy.

Th-th-th-th-that’s all folks!