Report From Crawford, Texas

Stephen Cook | October 2, 2004 | Stephen Cook

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

That isnt true. The larger picture tells me that this is a referendum on the War Powers Act and the people of this country don't even know it. Vietnam and Iraq are "debacles" because Congress abdicated it's responsibility so when the going gets tough it falls on the executive. Further, it falls on the executive branch to determine national priorities. It's the ultimate weaseling out for Congress and the ultimate loss for our nation.

sorry, I hit post prematurely.

Congress is full of weak as water pussies. I agree that legally and legislatively you may be right, but this affects the soul of the country. Vietnam and Watergate hang over this country like two swords of Damacles.

When the soul shifts, we may get people in that will change the root problems, but as is the soul is conflicted. General propaganda blames conservatives for Vietnam, and God knows conservatives pulled Watergate.

My point is that this election and the war against terror and islamofachism is in front of a new generation. (I include people who could not think for themselves in the 60's in this new generation) The fight is over whether the antiwar movement during Vietnam was patriotic or treasonous.

With the advent of technologies allowing bypassing of the propagandists (MSM) the brainwashing of the Vietnam era can not happen again, and the misguided of the 60's are reforming their world views. Fox, if you add up cable and broadcast had about 13 or 14 million viewers for the first debate. Why? There is a serious shift in the populace towards coming to their own conclusions from reasonably unbiased sources, and preferring a conservative commentary. Was it 9/11? Well, to me, it looks like it started even before that.

[texasbluebell]

Hook 'em Horns!

link

[texasbluebell]

Ah, I see it's something else.

Could have fooled me...

[Richard Kimball]

I plan to keep doing photographs for the paper, and I don't think they'll fire me. If they do, financially it's no big deal. I could make more money buying doorknobs for $2 and selling them for $1.

Without bragging, my photos are a pretty popular part of the paper. Besides, I've already promised the band, flag girls, cheerleaders, players and school administrators that they could use my photos for the yearbook and the banquets, so I'll be photographing every week.

As to me quitting over the flap, I don't think it would be ethical. I committed to photographing every week for the season, and there's just something seamy about quitting at this time. It's kind of a commitment to the kids. I want them to have good photos to look back on when the year is over.

[Eva]

This article from the Opinion Journal should explain what is going on with the Iconoclast:

The Iconoclast's Icon
A Baptist-bashing Crawford, Texas, newspaper endorses Kerry.

BY DAVE SHIFLETT
Friday, October 1, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Traditionalist Christians have had a trying week. After a poll by the Gallup Organization put President Bush eight points ahead of Sen. Kerry, Moveon.Org took out an ad noting the evangelical religious credentials of a Gallup family member. Would such a thing happen to Jewish, Islamic or Episcopalian pollsters?

Then came the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, in which Joan Rivers is quoted as saying, "I hate Jesus freaks. They're ugly," adding: " 'Jesus loves me,' they say. If he loved you so much he would have given you a f---ing chin."

And on Tuesday, a Texas weekly called the Lone Star Iconoclast, which is the First Methodist's hometown rag, endorsed John Kerry for president. The endorsement brought the left-leaning paper immediate fame, including a warm write-up in the New York Times. Interestingly enough, however, the Times, which carried the anti-Gallup ad, failed to mention the Iconoclast's religious and racist heritage. Local Baptists might suspect a coverup.

As its Web site reports, the paper takes its name from a Waco publication founded in the 1890s by William Cowper Brann, "one of the most intriguing writers of his era." Brann is also highly admired by another good liberal, Texas columnist Molly Ivins, who invokes Brann from time to time, especially when flogging Baptists and other religious types.

In one column, for instance, Ms. Ivins found it "a shame we have no William Brann or H.L. Mencken around to mock some of the more patent idiocies advanced in the name of organized religion." In another she noted, somewhat mockingly, that "Fundamentalist Christian missionaries are now salivating over the prospect of going to Iraq to convert the hapless heathen. This is guaranteed to make America as popular as the clap in the region. The Southern Baptists are poised to deploy en masse, reminding us of Texas newspaperman William Brann's famous comment, 'The trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough.' "





Ms. Ivins typically refers to Brann as a "populist." But he was much more than that. He was as vicious a race-baiter as ever walked the Earth. In an essay titled "Beans and Blood," for instance, Brann attacked Bostonians who have had the temerity to suggest that blacks are "beings born in the image of God" and entitled to a fair trial. The Bostonians had been outraged over a spate of public burnings of black rape suspects.
Brann argued that the Yankees knew blacks only from a distance and were therefore unaware they have "no more conception of morality than a hyena." Indeed, he added, "you can no more educate honor and chastity into a c--- than into a brindle cat." The "civilization of the black man, such as it is, is due to his enslavement by a superior race."

Brann and his fellow superiors, he said, had tried due process of law on the "lecherous devils 'born in the image' of Boston's deity." They had shot them, sent them to the gallows, "flayed them alive, and all without effect. Having found the law a failure and respectable lynching futile, we have begun to kerosene 'em and set 'em on fire." Other passages simply cannot be printed in this newspaper.

Brann's ferocity places him in an elite class of especially toxic racists, and Ms. Ivins is forgiving a great deal to invoke and indeed praise him. One senses that his saving grace is a shared and abiding prejudice against traditional believers, one that is quite respectable in the circles Ms. Ivins runs in.

Brann brought an equal fervor to his Baptist-baiting. In one of his milder columns, he noted: "One cannot write philosophic essays while dallying with the Baptist faith. It were too much like mixing Websterian dignity with a cataleptoid convulsion or sitting on a red ant hill and trying to look unconcerned."

His attacks were so persistent that eventually a group of students from Baylor, the nearby Baptist school, abducted him. He survived that ordeal but his luck ran out after another Baylor partisan, Tom Davis, challenged him to a duel, which transpired on the streets of Waco. On the fateful day, both men fired, both men fell and both men died. One lives on, thanks to his latter-day fans.

Mr. Shiflett is a free-lance writer and member of the White House Writers Group.

[Richard Kimball]

I was aware of the origin of the Iconoclast's name, although I always thought it was a little goofy for a small town newspaper. I wasn't aware of the radical nature of the original publication. Thanks for the information.

[Balding_Eagle]

Thanks for posting this. It confirms what I already suspected.

Something doesn't make sense though. You said "It genuinely hurt the staff that one story turned the town so strongly against them."

How could they be so out of touch with the citizens they are writing stories and columns about each week that they were surprised by the reaction?

[aBootes]

Bump for an excellent post...and a vanity at that.

[wvromania]

it doesn't seem like it would be to hard to roundup the 900 some residents of this town to protest the newspaper office. and demand a editoral change, by protesting and cancelling subscriptions.

somone should volunteer to round up as many as possible for a statement against the paper.

[Richard Kimball]

A couple of things surprised everyone. I'm not sure anyone expected the endorsement to receive the level of national response that it did. They expected a firecracker of response. They got a stick of dynamite.

Small towns are kind of like the Las Vegas commercials, "what happens here, stays here." Nobody in town is going to get upset if someone else is voting for John Kerry, and that wasn't the real issue. In the paper, they attacked Bush pretty soundly, and that didn't go over well, but the real anger was over the national implication that the town endorsed Bush.

[N8VTXNinWV]

"Go Bulldogs!"

are you from McGregor?

[Eva]

bump

[F16Fighter]

Shortly after the Democrats began their drive to unseat George Bush, a group came to town and bought an old house. They called it the Crawford Peace House. The house serves as a meeting place for people who want to have demonstrations and parades against the President....

None of the people associated with the Peace House are residents of Crawford, and all they really bring to the area are headaches. From my perspective, they're the same bunch of sixties radicals who now use bandanas to cover up bald spots and haven't done anything since 1967 except look for things to protest and a camera to photograph them doing it.

Heh-heh...

I for one look forward to your accomodating these career sh*t-stirrers when you snap a lovely gallery of pics taken at the gallows ;-)

[mabelkitty]

This was a great story of Americana.
I loved the pictures, and it took me back to my youth in football crazy Ohio.
You should get this published in Townhall.

[farmfriend]

bttt

[freecopper01]

Remember, she's someone's daughter, sister, future wife, and above all most likely, a child of God.

[norton]

Really nice story.
Sounds like you've found a nice place for a life.

[Richard Kimball]

She's also got a brother that was all-district last year, benches 350, and is playing fullback in college. He's very protective of his little sis.

[Richard Kimball]

Thanks. When I wrote this, I was actually expecting about three responses and then for it to die a quiet death. Because the reaction was so positive from so many people, I posted it to my blog, here.

If anyone wants to use it or email it to someone, they're more than welcome.

[N. Beaujon]

LesbianThespian (love the handle) I agree with all that you say, my fear is that people will miss the point of the problem and Bush will lose because Congress if full of lilly livered pussies who give the Executive the power to declare war and then turn on them when the going gets tough.

In my opinion, this is the root cause of Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq and our weakening position overseas. It is the cause of the gradual rise of terror. Because we as a nation have not been forced, through the political processes the CONSTITUTION put in place, to form a collective backbone we are at the mercy of fragmented spineless partisans who could give a shit about this country and care only about playing to their respective politcal base. None of them are accountable, so we throw out Presidents and Congress gets to walk away clean.

Bush is in real danger of losing this race because people think he ALONE got us into this war. And wimps like Kerry can says idiotic things like, "I gave him the authority it's HIS fault that he used it and then f---ed it up." When as you know that is complete and utter BS. But he can get away with that line of weaselling because technically people can see it as true.

So, Bush could lose is my point because Congress will turn on him when the going gets tough in a war they gave him the authority to fight. The constitution had it right: LET CONGRESS DECLARE WAR, then you have the entire will of the American public behind you because Congress then cant go back to their consitutuents and then blame it anyone else.

This country is lost, imo, and I blame the War Powers Act. It's simplistic but Occam's razor, I say. The simplist answer in this case IS the answer.

By the way, it was the REPUBLICANS who got us OUT of Vietnam and the Democrats who not only got us in but lacked the political will to actually fight. How Nixon got the bum rap on losing Vietnam is completely beyond me. It was Lydon Baines Johnson and his administration who lost that war and such "useful idiots" as John Kerry who just helped them along.

The left loves failure. The only reason they are so intent on winning this election is so that they can make SURE America fails in Iraq. Why do you think they are so in love with the UN?