MORT's Meanderings:

Not 'Fair & Balanced' but, 'Fully-reported', please.

The beat reporters in Washington, DC are just learning what the media in Florida's District 22 (Broward and Palm Beach counties) have known for the past several years. Congressman Allen West (R) is a rock-solid, dependable source for thoughtful assessments on the meaningful issues of the day. What's more, he delivers his thoughts in a clear and concise manner, using plain everyday English.

In a recent interview videotaped on Capitol Hill, the freshman Congressman issued the following statement. He didn't hesitate. He didn't qualify. He didn't equivocate. He simply said:

"The President needs to admit that his economic policies, his tax policies have failed this country."

It came as no surprise to this writer that Cong. West responded to each of the interviewer's questions directly and to the point, with military precision. Nearly all his issue-oriented responses include an example to illustrate his point, that is invariably accompanied by supporting facts and figures.

He does his homework, studies the issues and forms his assessments based upon realistic appraisals and careful analysis. His decisions are arrived at based upon his underpinnings of strong religious faith, ethical principles and his respect for the sworn oath he has taken at each stage of his career to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

My question is:

When the totality of factual information on an issue is researched, absorbed, analyzed and used to arrive at a thoughtfully considered assessment that is based upon sound logic, Constitutional principles and has the expressed support of a majority of the American public, do we really need an opposing viewpoint - simply to satisfy somone's notion of, 'fair and balanced'?

There is no question that issues affecting the lives and well-being of America's citizens must be thoroughly discussed in the public forum. 'Fully-reported' information is key to all such discussions. The 'fair and balanced' approach to discussions, particularly on those "We're-almost-out-of-time" TV panel shows driven by dictatorial moderators, are seldom either fair or balanced. Shouted partisan talking points and ear-splitting cacophony in the form of 'everybody-talk-at-once' sessions, invariably muddy the waters rather than providing clear, concise viewpoints (think, Congressman Allen West). Food for thought should be palatable and nourishing. There are no known cases of anyone ever having become obese from ingesting too much food for thought. (Michelle Overbearing, take note)

It seems to me that if an issue has been thoroughly discussed by serious people - and there is majority concurrence that a reasonable, workable, fair resolution has been arrived at on the matter, further jaw-boning is contra-indicated. In other words, to drone on and on with countering viewpoints presented just for the 'contention' value they might offer is in my view, cruel and unusual punishment.

As my wise Father told me on more than one occasion, "Son, when you've finished what you have to say, sit down".

I'm sitting, Dad.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011