RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "What does yellow journalism red-baiting sound like?"

Anderson Cooper. (photo: CNN)
Anderson Cooper. (photo: CNN)


Anderson Cooper Offers No Apology for Slandering Bernie Sanders

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

19 October 15

 

ho was the richest person in CNN’s Democratic presidential debate?

The richest person in the Democratic presidential candidate debate on October 10 was not a candidate. The richest person on that Las Vegas stage was CNN moderator and Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper, whose $100 million net worth ($100,000,000) is greater than all the candidates’ worth combined (about $84,000,000). In a very real, if unspoken sense, this “debate” was more like an exclusive club interview with Cooper vetting the applicants for their class credentials.

These class aspects of the debate went unmentioned. In American politics, class issues have traditionally gone unmentioned. The tacit understanding is that if you have the bad taste to ask, then you have no class. If you have class, you will have the right opinions. This year is different because of Bernie Sanders, part of whose popular appeal is that he is so clearly the scion of no great wealth and even less pretension. Sanders is calling for a social revolution against the ruling class of millionaires and billionaires, yet even he did not publicly object to having multi-millionaire Anderson Cooper of the One Per Cent running the show. Sanders likely understands that his best chance to win is not to confront the rich, but to surround them with everyone else whose net worth is more like his ($700,000) or less.

Net worth is notoriously hard to pin down with any accuracy, but ballpark figures are good enough at the highest levels, even if the numbers usually come from the candidates themselves. In a candidates’ net worth listing published October 13, the Democrats were evaluated as follows (with an alternative set of estimates in parenthesis):

  • Hillary Clinton: $45 million ($31.2 herself, with Bill $111 million)

  • Lincoln Chaffee: $32 million ($31.9 million, mostly his wife’s trust)

  • Jim Webb: $6 million ($4.6 million)

  • Bernie Sanders: $700,000 ($528,014)

  • Martin O’Malley: $-0- ($256,000)

By one recent measure, it takes a net worth of $1.2 million, minimum, to make it into the top One Per Cent of richest Americans (usually accompanied by pre-tax income of more than $300,000 annually). A US senator’s salary is $192,600, which is amplified significantly by perks and benefits.

Cooper’s life of wealth illuminates his gift as a glib carnival barker

Like most debate moderators, Anderson Cooper seemed most interested in promoting a food fight among the candidates. While he had snark for everyone, his most provocative and least conscionable jibes were saved for Sanders, served up with class-based relish.

What does yellow journalism red-baiting sound like? Cooper started with the lurking horror of every unjustifiably rich person:

“Senator Sanders. A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?”

How could such a horror happen in America? That’s the question he seems to be asking. But to ask it that way, Cooper has to be deceitful and spin the Gallup poll to fit his meaning (Cooper’s spin reflects the conventional coverage of the poll at the time). The real news from the June 2015 poll was that 47% of Americans were OK with electing a “socialist” (not further defined by pollsters). That 47% is more than past polls, and those opposed to a “socialist” make up only 50%, a difference close to the margin of error. In other words, more than a year from the presidential election, Gallup finds America more or less neutral on the question of whether or not a candidate is “any kind of socialist.” For a Bernie kind of socialist, the simple answer to getting elected is to make the kind of progress in the next year that he’s made in the past six months.

Cooper’s approach uses “socialism” as something that is by definition pejorative and comes out of a deep, common bias in the US. The American ruling class has cultivated fear of “socialism” for close to two centuries, not because it’s a threat to people’s freedom but because it’s a threat to the wealth and power of people like the 158 families funding most of the 2016 race for the presidency.

Anderson Coopers class roots: Vanderbilt, Dalton, Yale, CIA

Anderson Cooper was not only born into wealth and power, he has lived the life of that class, as even his official CNN bio affirms. After attending New York’s Dalton School, Cooper graduated from Yale College in 1989 with a BA in political science and two summer internships at the CIA. He also studied Vietnamese at the University of Hanoi.

Cooper kept his CIA experience in the closet until September 2006, when an unnamed web site reported that Cooper had worked for the CIA. Cooper responded on his CNN blog in minimizing, dismissive fashion. He said the website didn’t have its facts straight, but cited no errors. His own facts are well fudged – “for a couple of months over two summers I worked at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia…. It was pretty bureaucratic and mundane.” Cooper doesn’t say what he did (of course) or even what years he was there (1987 and 1988, in the aftermath of William J. Casey’s directorship). Whatever Cooper did at the CIA, he was there when the CIA was running an illegal war in Nicaragua (and another in El Salvador) and the agency’s activities were subject to serious congressional efforts to curb them (the Boland Amendment).

When Sanders offered no direct answer to the question of how a “socialist” could win a general election, Cooper followed up more vituperatively and dishonestly:

“The question is really about electability here, and that’s what I’m trying to get at. You — the — the Republican attack ad against you in a general election — it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you’re not a capitalist. Doesn’t — doesn’t that ad write itself?”

Cooper’s first dishonesty here is asking the “electability” question here only of Sanders. Yes, everyone assumes Hillary Clinton is “electable,” ­but O’Malley, Chaffee, or Webb? They’re not even as close to getting nominated as Sanders. Why would anyone assume they’re electable in anything but a flip-of-the-coin sense? Cooper’s addressing the electability question only to Sanders may actually be a measure of how strong Cooper believes Sanders is or may be.

Then Cooper stated: “You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.” He said it as if there were no question that supporting the Sandinistas was a really bad thing. That’s the talking point on Breitbart, National Review, and other right-wing sites for whom Cooper was carrying water. On Just Foreign Policy, Robert Naiman posted a prompt denunciation of Cooper for playing the knee-jerk, pro-war media honcho.

Cooper on record in support of illegal war supported by drug traffic

Supporting the Sandinistas in the 1980s was, and is, a principled position. The Sandinistas had overthrown the Somoza government, one of the most vicious of the US-backed dictatorships in Central America. President Reagan decided to wage an illegal covert war against the Sandinistas, using the CIA to recruit the Contra army to fight in Nicaragua, supported by CIA-supported drug traffic to the US. Cooper refers to none of this, which was all taking place while he was doing summer internships at the CIA. Is Cooper a CIA asset? Hard to know, but he plays one pretty well on TV. A Cooper-CIA tie is perfectly credible – there’s means, motive, and opportunity all round. And in 1988, Bob Woodward wasn’t getting any younger.

Supporting the illegal Contra war, run on drug money, is an unprincipled position, but Cooper clearly implies that it’s still his position. Like the US government, Cooper showed no respect for the International Court of Justice, which issued a 1986 ruling strongly supporting Nicaragua’s claims against the US, including the US mining of Nicaraguan harbors. The ruling awarded reparations to Nicaragua that the US never paid. The lone dissent in the decision came from Judge Stephen Schwebel, an American judge. The US defended its position in the UN Security Council in soviet-style, blocking any action with numerous vetoes. The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in support of Nicaragua, with only the US, El Salvador, and Israel opposed.

For Cooper to say that Sanders supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would be high praise in most of the world. Only in the boxed-in, unilluminated world of American media can it pass for a criticism without bring the house down in laughter. That’s another of the US government successes brought on by secret agencies like the CIS and fellow-travelers like multi-millionaire Anderson Cooper.

Bernie Sanders challenged the yellow journalist on the issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails. His was an act of generosity and presidential stature. None of his fellow candidates had the courage or character to repudiate Cooper’s shameless red-baiting, not on Nicaragua, and not on his next slander, “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union.”

Integrity is not a quality Cooper showed much interest in

Almost surely Cooper knew that statement was a dishonest low blow, a neat way to brutalize the truth without actually lying. Again Cooper was irresponsibly peddling another right wing trope, used with similar hypocrisy by George Will and others.

As a Daily Kos blog details, the Sanders honeymoon was also part of a 1956 sister-cities program initiated by the Eisenhower administration. In 1988, Sanders and his wife Jane were married, marched in a Memorial Day parade, then headed off to the Russian city of Yaroslavl on their “honeymoon.” Somehow that doesn’t have the same impact as when Anderson Cooper lies about it.

Cooper’s last dishonesty was: “And just this weekend you said you’re not a capitalist.” Once again Cooper acted as if that was an undeniable evil, case closed. But the instance he referred to on NBC was not so simple, and Cooper provided no context. On NBC, Sanders bristled when his interviewer asked if Sanders was a “socialist,” since Sanders has referred to himself a “democratic socialist” for decades. Sanders asked the NBC toady parrot if he ever asked others if they were “capitalists” and the guy cowered out. He asked Sanders if he was a capitalist. And Sanders said, yet again, that he’s a democratic socialist.

Returning to his distorted framing bias, a “Republican attack ad,” Cooper asked, “Doesn’t that ad write itself?” Well, so what if it does? That just means Republican ad writers have as little integrity as Cooper, and maybe that’s what they’re all paid for.

As Sanders put in on CNN at the end of his opening statement:

“What this campaign is about is whether we can mobilize our people to take back our government from a handful of billionaires and create the vibrant democracy we know we can and should have.”

We are at the beginning of what might be a long learning curve as we find out what our country is truly about. Bernie Sanders offers an opportunity to look at realities in broad daylight and make up our minds about them. Anderson Cooper is but one of a legion of self-serving, self-preserving One Per Cent propagandists who will do all they can to keep the Sanders message in the dark.


William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+239 # PeacefulGarden 2015-10-19 11:14
Brilliant journalism. I never knew this about Anderson Cooper. I always thought he was out of place as a guest on the Daily Show of Comedy Central (like what is he doing on the show?). He obviously bought his way on.

Reading this article made me feel yucky because I actually believed Anderson Cooper was a real journalist. I was suckered. There are so many tricks in Capitalism.
 
 
-144 # Roland 2015-10-19 12:42
Just because one comes from wealth doesn’t mean one can’t be a good journalist. Is someone that comes from wealth necessarily a bad president? If so what about FDR?

I suggest you Wikipedia him, to see all the awards he has been awarded, nominated for or won for outstanding journalism and coverage.
 
 
+97 # angelfish 2015-10-19 14:07
"By your Works you are known".
 
 
0 # HowardMH 2015-10-20 10:05
Yes, so why are you all spending so much time trying to correct an idiot?
 
 
+154 # vt143 2015-10-19 14:17
Bill mentioned the wealth I presume to frame Cooper's questions and give us some background on his life which from the comments above many of us were ignorant of. But his main point was to point out Cooper's unfair and slanderous questions, which in light of his background make them even more damning.
 
 
+77 # PeacefulGarden 2015-10-19 14:58
Wow, Roland, so many replies. Why has this particular article caused a rush inside you?

And, yes, if Wikipedia says something about someone it must be true.

The wealthy are always given awards so the revolving door keeps going. It is a very sad truth, especially in artistic awards.

Whatever Roland; god, guns, and money... I get your point, and fuck the poor too.
 
 
-104 # Roland 2015-10-19 17:08
In regards to your last sentence. As I have pointed out before. The left always attacks the right as being evil and not caring about people. I am sure some on the left, believe these attacks. The right believes the left to be misguided. The right believes their policies will do the most good for everyone.
 
 
+121 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-19 18:14
And that's the point. The right "believes" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The right is big into belief, but sadly lacking in any kind of evidence for their beliefs, whatever they are - global warming, creationism, supply side economics, self regulating markets, austerity, war,you name it. Indeed in every case, the evidence contradicts the right wing's beliefs, but whenever confronted with facts, they just hold on more tightly to their beliefs.
 
 
-64 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:15
The right looks at the left and feels the same way.
 
 
+41 # beeyl 2015-10-20 18:39
And the South thought the North was wrong on slavery. So what?
Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean there's (any or equal) merit in both positions.
 
 
+43 # PeacefulGarden 2015-10-19 19:19
You are talking about the left and the right as if they were single entities. Like the right is a person.

The giraffes believe the the zebras are eating too much grass... and we must do good for all animals because the giraffes are tall...

It has a childish narration; a fantasy.

I can believe anything.

But, Roland, what does the "right" have planned for the poor of this nation? Please. Tell me? Like Anderson Cooper really has thoughtful journalism about the poor of this country...
give me some example... I will take any fact... please... tell me what you have already pointed out...
Even some plan from Ronald Regan... anything the right has done...
 
 
-93 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:27
Reagan lowered taxes and deregulated. And the economy did well for the next decade and a half.
Clinton benefited from these policies, a .com boom and a peace dividend created by Reagan's Russian policy.
 
 
+52 # PeacefulGarden 2015-10-20 03:25
Roland, you are in a fantasy world. You are allowing a set of beliefs to run your consciousness. It really is god, guns, and money for you. You cherish those objects above everything else. I wish you all the best.
 
 
+55 # WBoardman 2015-10-20 11:05
Roland talks about lower taxes,
but the big mid-1980 tax overhaul
actually raised taxes on lower incomes
(thanks also to Bill Bradley).
 
 
+50 # dbrize 2015-10-20 12:19
Quoting WBoardman:
Roland talks about lower taxes,
but the big mid-1980 tax overhaul
actually raised taxes on lower incomes
(thanks also to Bill Bradley).


And eliminated deduction of credit card interest which hit the middle class hard.
 
 
+21 # dbrize 2015-10-20 12:23
Quoting Roland:
Reagan lowered taxes and deregulated. And the economy did well for the next decade and a half.
Clinton benefited from these policies, a .com boom and a peace dividend created by Reagan's Russian policy.


Roland you do try hard and I give you grudging admiration for persistence, but the father of deregulation was Jimmy Carter. Nor should you take this as an argument against "sensible" deregulation. There is a happy medium out there somewhere and I find myself in general agreement that certain areas of the economy do better with less regulation, though most certainly not banking.
 
 
+67 # jcdav 2015-10-19 19:24
The right has a very poor track record. Their actions are of little good for anyone except themselves and their corporate masters.
 
 
-72 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:30
Besides what I mentioned above about the benefits Reagan brought to everyone, the right has been proven correct about the surge in Iraq, not leaving Iraq, Russia still being a threat, needing to stay in Afghanistan, not being able to keep your doctor or your health care plan and trying to rein in Fannie and Freddie before the recent financial crisis .
 
 
+24 # dbrize 2015-10-20 12:25
Quoting Roland:
Besides what I mentioned above about the benefits Reagan brought to everyone, the right has been proven correct about the surge in Iraq, not leaving Iraq, Russia still being a threat, needing to stay in Afghanistan, not being able to keep your doctor or your health care plan and trying to rein in Fannie and Freddie before the recent financial crisis .


Roland:

Wrong, wrong, wrong ,correct and ah, partially correct (there were many on the "right" who supported Fannie and Freddie.
 
 
+85 # randrjwr 2015-10-19 19:31
Quoting Roland:
In regards to your last sentence. As I have pointed out before. The left always attacks the right as being evil and not caring about people. I am sure some on the left, believe these attacks. The right believes the left to be misguided. The right believes their policies will do the most good for everyone.


You really think ANYONE could believe that wiping out labor unions, ignoring or denying the hazards of climate change, despoiling our (finite) potable water resources by fracking, privatizing Social Security, voucherizing Medicare and repealing the ACA (the list could go on, but you get the idea--or, at least, you should) would do the most good for everyone?

What are you smoking?
 
 
-60 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:33
You are probably not aware of the arguments against each of these things you listed. I am fairly sure your media doesn't give you the other side. Your media wouldn't want to confuse you. They have an agenda.

The only thing that you listed that I worry about is fracking.
 
 
+20 # randrjwr 2015-10-20 14:33
Quoting Roland:
You are probably not aware of the arguments against each of these things you listed. I am fairly sure your media doesn't give you the other side. Your media wouldn't want to confuse you. They have an agenda.

The only thing that you listed that I worry about is fracking.


I am well aware of at least some of such arguments, which IMO are all motivated by the greed of the wealthy. Perhaps you could enlighten us by enumerating those that are closest to your heart.
 
 
+12 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:35
Quoting Roland:
You are probably not aware of the arguments against each of these things you listed. I am fairly sure your media doesn't give you the other side. Your media wouldn't want to confuse you. They have an agenda.

The only thing that you listed that I worry about is fracking.
And you have not provided those arguments. The ones I hear from those on the Right are based on beliefs (more like, fantasies) with apparently willful ignorance of facts.
 
 
+50 # hkatzman 2015-10-19 20:43
Quoting Roland:
The left always attacks the right as being evil and not caring about people.


The Right cares about the individual, usually themselves. Every one of their positions is about personal gain of the individual. They do not care about the People -- a statement about communality, or lack thereof.
 
 
-44 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:35
You have no idea what you are talking about , but that type of talk, is good to rally the misinformed.
 
 
+13 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:37
Quoting Roland:
You have no idea what you are talking about , but that type of talk, is good to rally the misinformed.

Again, no offer of factual argument.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2015-10-22 13:44
Quoting Roland:
You have no idea what you are talking about , but that type of talk, is good to rally the misinformed.


Actually, IMO neither one of you knows what you are talking about.

Whatever the "right or "left " is, both groups are comprised of millions who love their families, participate in their communities, coach youth teams and express themselves in a variety of unselfish ways.
 
 
+77 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 15:31
Roland's admiration of awards
as a criterion for worth
is an excellent example
of a variety of logical fallacies,
including relevance,
ad hominem,
appeal to authority,
and others,
many listed on Wikipedia
under "List of fallacies."

Then there's the more serious fallacy
(and failure of integrity)
of misrepresenting an argument in order to rebut it.

Anderson Cooper's wealth is a fact,
part of the permanent context of his life,
not the sole cause of what he's done with that life.
 
 
+11 # Caliban 2015-10-19 16:54
We can hope this is the case, I guess.
 
 
+18 # lorenbliss 2015-10-19 20:15
There is also the patriarchal core phallusy evidenced by acceptance of so many operational fallacies.

(Sorry; the Muse made me do it.)
 
 
+8 # Vegan_Girl 2015-10-22 06:38
Thank you for this article. I always thought that Cooper was gross and never quite understood his success. Now I get it.

We live in an age where mainstream media is owned and has become a propaganda-mach ine for the ruling class and corporations.

Calling out these kind of things is what I call journalism, and what I need to feel informed.
 
 
+23 # Radscal 2015-10-20 00:33
From the Roland:

"I suggest you Wikipedia him..."

Laughing Our Loud! No one should trust Wikipedia on any subject, but as regards a CIA asset, citing Wiki is absolutely hilarious!

"CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/16/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

"See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign"

http://archive.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

Next to Israel, CIA has one of the most aggressive Wikipedia editing programs in the world.
 
 
+17 # David Starr 2015-10-20 13:06
@Roland: Cooper is NOT Woodward and Bernstein.
 
 
+56 # vicnada 2015-10-19 17:24
Boardman gives voice to discomfort I felt during the attack on Bernie. It was loaded. Heavily front-loaded.

"Is Cooper a CIA asset? Hard to know, but he plays one pretty well on TV. A Cooper-CIA tie is perfectly credible – there’s means, motive, and opportunity all round."

Chilling, given Cooper's popularity. But look how the Roland troll goes to work rehabbing his image by forcefully attacking anyone who would challenge his journalistic ethics and sense of fair-play.

Cooper as an asset would be an unbelievable treasure to the agency for exactly the reasons Boardman has articulated.
 
 
+20 # ritawalpoleague 2015-10-20 07:23
Sooooo true, PeacefulGarden. Today, sad to say, our 'mess' media, with it's takeover by anything but truthtelling corps., is doing anything and everything it can to keep we, the dumbed down sheeple, totally naïve and crippled with karlroving style dirty trickery MSD - manipulation, spin, distraction.

Trash Bernie Sanders, up one side and down the other they do, while conning us into thinking Hillary Clinton (or as I have come to call her, Hill the Shill) is going to, without a doubt, be the Dem. nominee.

Cannot have Bernie's political revolt go on, now can the 1%ers, today's actual rulers in this no longer a democracy, but rather a corruptcracy. Ugh, what a mess we're in.

Solution - feel the Bern, and recognize that unlike Hillary Clinton...

SANDERS PANDERS NOT, TO THE 1%
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2015-10-21 18:25
As far as class goes, judging from his performance in the debates, Cooper is a first class ass.

Witness the time he allocated to the other three candidates, Webb, O'Malley and Chaffee; and consider the disrespect he gave to them and to Sanders. I can't speak for his journalism as I have never read it and never expect to. But as a moderator in a debate Cooper is abysmal. If they use him in the next debate, I won't waste my time watching.

And speaking of class, Bernie has more class than the rest of them put together.
 
 
+118 # Ma Tsu 2015-10-19 12:23
Anderson Cooper and his ilk at CNN, like Bill O'Reilly and his at Fox, serve at the pleasure of their masters, Jeff Zucker and Roger Ailes, respectively. These presidents of Fox News and CNN ought to be ashamed of themselves. Yes, the populace is rightly incensed at the inexcusable conduct of the political classes and frustrated that these ‘leaders’ refrain from conducting public affairs for any greater public good, but pandering to this anger and frustration is unproductive and pandering remains in many quarters a crime. For forcing their talking heads to become gossip mongers, aggressively assaulting the candidates with accusatory statements masked as questions and for requiring substantive issues to be addressed in one minute sound bites, neither network should be allowed to again ‘moderate’ our nation’s discussion with itself over our collective future.
As to the talking heads, well, they're just talking heads (with their "Eichmann excuse" ever at the ready).
 
 
-133 # Roland 2015-10-19 12:26
Wikipedia— “Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from non-democratic forms of socialism, such as the Marxist–Leninis t brand of socialism.”

Bernie has identified himself at times as a socialist and at other times as a democratic socialist. I don’t think many in this country fear our govt. changing away from a democracy. What they do fear is the economic aspect of socialism, which is what Bernie appears to support.

So it isn’t fair for people to say Bernie would take us down the route of Venezuela. Greece and Italy would be more like it since, he doesn’t seem to support the needed taxes on the middle class and the free market principles that make the Nordic states successful with their form of socialism.
 
 
-115 # Roland 2015-10-19 12:41
Maybe some do fear the loss of our democracy.

Economist Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992): "When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself."
 
 
+92 # guomashi 2015-10-19 13:40
Quoting Roland:
Maybe some do fear the loss of our democracy.

Economist Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992): "When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself."


Democracy self-destructs from ignorance alone.

We see enough of that when voting is based entirely upon labels "first woman president" "socialist" "RINO" etc., with no consideration of actual policies.
 
 
-63 # Roland 2015-10-19 14:48
"Frist woman president" isn't based on policy.
Socialist and RINO do refer to policies. If Bernie is a democratic socialist as he says, he is stating his desires for certain types of policies.
 
 
+67 # vt143 2015-10-19 15:05
[quote name="Roland"]M aybe some do fear the loss of our democracy.
We're really a plutocracy and methinks the plutocrats fear the loss of their (read: THEIR) plutocracy.
 
 
+29 # Farafalla 2015-10-19 16:08
OMG A Hayek troll!!
 
 
+2 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:43
Quoting Farafalla:
OMG A Hayek troll!!

!!!!!
 
 
+57 # bullslam 2015-10-19 17:11
And von Hayek is, of course, the ultimate authority on all political systems.

What crap! Everything about the Austrian School of economics is deplorable. Hayek gave us the extremely conservative Chicago School from which came the other a$$hole economist, Milton Friedman, who advised Nixon to send the CIA to stir up trouble in Chile and assassinate the democratically elected socialist Allende. The CIA helped the military junta stage a coup and then put in The Monster, Pinochet. So Friedman, spawn of von Hayek, was responsible for that. But why I really despise Milton Friedman is his insistence that Capitalists must create the worst product and services they can possibly get away with in order to focus entirely on maximizing profit. Thank you, Friedrich/Fried man!
 
 
-6 # dbrize 2015-10-20 12:32
Quoting bullslam:
And von Hayek is, of course, the ultimate authority on all political systems.

What crap! Everything about the Austrian School of economics is deplorable. Hayek gave us the extremely conservative Chicago School from which came the other a$$hole economist, Milton Friedman, who advised Nixon to send the CIA to stir up trouble in Chile and assassinate the democratically elected socialist Allende. The CIA helped the military junta stage a coup and then put in The Monster, Pinochet. So Friedman, spawn of von Hayek, was responsible for that. But why I really despise Milton Friedman is his insistence that Capitalists must create the worst product and services they can possibly get away with in order to focus entirely on maximizing profit. Thank you, Friedrich/Friedman!


I love it when you attack two Nobel Prize winners. Let's remember it the next time our friend Paul Krugman is attacked. Just because they win the Prize doesn't make them right does it.
 
 
+8 # WBoardman 2015-10-21 12:18
Kissinger (among others) won the Nobel Peace Prize ;-)))
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2015-10-21 12:27
Quoting WBoardman:
Kissinger (among others) won the Nobel Peace Prize ;-)))


As did Obama. Hilarity is bipartisan Brother Boardman. :)
 
 
+1 # economagic 2015-10-19 20:16
You don't seem to know much about Hayek.
 
 
+33 # X Dane 2015-10-19 21:32
Roland.....Wake up! it is a long time since we were a democracy. What we have now is an OLIGARKY. We are totally owned and dominated by the super rich and big corporations.

They OWN the country and all of us, for their propaganda confuse people, who must work hard for their money, and do not have enough energy left to fully inform themselves.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2015-10-20 00:38
Roland, you forgot the approved meme is "The US is a Republic; NOT a democracy."
 
 
+4 # wrknight 2015-10-21 18:56
Quoting Radscal:
Roland, you forgot the approved meme is "The US is a Republic; NOT a democracy."

It was designed to be a Republic. It's questionable whether it still is. Whatever it is, democratic it is not.
 
 
+10 # Vegan_Girl 2015-10-22 04:06
“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” –Plutarch (46-120)
 
 
+128 # MEBrowning 2015-10-19 13:43
Roland, Bernie Sanders believes the middle class is paying TOO MUCH in taxes. He does NOT suggest the middle class pay no taxes. He is campaigning on the idea that the 1% should pay their fair share of tax, which currently is, proportionately , far less than the middle class pay. Big difference.
 
 
-93 # Roland 2015-10-19 14:39
that isn't how the European model, that he mentioned, works. The middle class has to pay more because that is where the money is. There aren't enough wealthy to pay for what we have now, yet alone more spending. And VAT taxes, like seen in many European countries, are regressive. You re foolish to think he can pay for everything with only taxing the wealthy more.
 
 
+68 # bmiluski 2015-10-19 15:08
No Roland...as usual you can't wrap your brain around something that hasn't been given to you by your FOX masters.
Bernie doesn't want to tax the wealthy MORE. He wants to tax them the SAME as the middleclass is taxed.
After all shouldn't the wealthy pay as much for the streets to be paved on which their "benzes" drive?
 
 
-54 # Roland 2015-10-19 16:54
I think you should study the tax code and see who pays the majority of the taxes.

And how that will have to change if Bernie's ideas come to pass.
 
 
+24 # Jump Off Joe 2015-10-19 18:01
The tax codes have little to do with "who pays the most taxes". As you surely know?
 
 
+39 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-19 18:19
When the 1% owns 60% of the wealth and pays 40% of the income taxes, then they are undertaxed.
 
 
-33 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:47
The top 1% pay around 45% of all taxes and earn around 17% of total income. The 60% figure you mentioned or whatever the figure is, is as you said, total assets. Total assets have been earned and taxes paid on them. They have been inflated by the Fed’s recent policies. Most agree that there are bubbles in many markets. You want to tax them on assets and investments that can fall with the economy and errors made by the govt. This is after you wanted them to invest in order to create more jobs. Greed and envy on your part. And let’s get real. They don’t have enough money to cover all the spending you want. And if you take it, you will kill the system that pays for the benefits distributed today.
 
 
+16 # wrknight 2015-10-21 19:07
Quoting bmiluski:
No Roland...as usual you can't wrap your brain around something that hasn't been given to you by your FOX masters.
Bernie doesn't want to tax the wealthy MORE. He wants to tax them the SAME as the middleclass is taxed.
After all shouldn't the wealthy pay as much for the streets to be paved on which their "benzes" drive?

Actually, I want them to pay more. I want them to pay for the privileges that come from their money and are not earned. I want them to pay for the air and water they pollute and the destruction they wrought on our environment. I want them to pay for the cost of the wars they cause and I want them to pay for the welfare of disabled veterans and the families of those who perished in those wars. I want them to pay for the financial losses incurred by the working class due to the reckless financial gambling with other people's money on Wall Street. I want them to pay for every nickel lost by the working class caused by legislation that boosts corporate profits at public expense. You're goddamned right I want them to pay more!
 
 
+61 # Anarchist 23 2015-10-19 15:37
Hmmm..if Bloomberg has, as reported, a personal fortune of 25 Billion dollars and he is taxed at 90% he still have $225 Million dollars left...but really, who can live on such a paltry sum! Maybe we should just raise the cap on social Security taxes to unlimited...so if some CEO get..say a paltry $40 million per year, he would pay if SS takes 17 percent, about 6,800,000 to SS...and he would certainly have enough remaining to live a decent modest life..while seniors contemplating a meal of catfood or expired food brought from the Dollar Store might not have to choose between food, heat or medicine...let alone rent. Cooper is another rich spoiled brat keeping the fascist Security state in place with his propaganda...as do you Roland.
 
 
+2 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:47
Quoting Roland:
that isn't how the European model, that he mentioned, works. The middle class has to pay more because that is where the money is. There aren't enough wealthy to pay for what we have now, yet alone more spending. And VAT taxes, like seen in many European countries, are regressive. You re foolish to think he can pay for everything with only taxing the wealthy more.

It has worked well enough in the past.
 
 
+2 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:47
Quoting MEBrowning:
Roland, Bernie Sanders believes the middle class is paying TOO MUCH in taxes. He does NOT suggest the middle class pay no taxes. He is campaigning on the idea that the 1% should pay their fair share of tax, which currently is, proportionately, far less than the middle class pay. Big difference.
Roland is a graduate of the Right Deceptive Arts School of Propaganda.
 
 
+90 # tomwalker8 2015-10-19 14:09
Actually, Bernie believes the middle class tax burden is greater than it should and would be under a more fair economic model. It isn't just the millionaires and billionaires (whose contributions to social security, for instance, are proportionately miniscule), but also fabulously profitable corporations that pay little or no taxes at all. Those grossly asymmetrical conditions are long overdue for correction.
 
 
-85 # Roland 2015-10-19 14:43
Please look at my response to MEBrowinging.
In addition we already tax corps. more than other countries. The left always feels that supposedly evil corporations have their money.
 
 
+60 # bmiluski 2015-10-19 15:11
Roland, you must remember one thing....we don't think like you people. We don't believe that corps are people, therefore, they can't be evil. However, the people that run these corp. and profit from them CAN be evil.
 
 
+46 # Saberoff 2015-10-19 15:40
Corporations are not only robbing our purses they're robbing our brains, producing maximum crap for maximum profit.

I want them the fuck out of my life, of which they insinuate themselves into every facet.

Let us count the ways.
 
 
+42 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-19 18:21
And American corporations PAY LESS than in other countries.
 
 
-19 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:50
on what do you base that?
 
 
+2 # Vegan_Girl 2015-10-22 06:10
Under FDR and the New Deal, corporations paid $1.50 for every dollar of individual income tax. Now that amount is 25 cents for every dollar of individual income tax.

And the New Deal has produced the greatest economic growth in American history.
 
 
+43 # joeybagofdonuts 2015-10-19 14:53
Roland - Wikipedia:the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.
 
 
-29 # Roland 2015-10-19 17:14
Which part of what I referred to, do you believe to be incorrect?
 
 
+11 # joeybagofdonuts 2015-10-20 08:18
First, the fact that you use Wikipedia as a primary source for your information instantly gives you no credibility. Second, refer to my first point.
 
 
+21 # Nominae 2015-10-19 21:07
Quoting joeybagofdonuts:
Roland - Wikipedia:the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.


YES. And the people who actually DO most of the editing are Corporate Minions who are PAID to do the editing.
 
 
-13 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:51
Baseless accusation Again, what part of what I took from Wikipedia is wrong?
 
 
+7 # Caliban 2015-10-22 10:28
Attacking Roland's ideas is fine. And certainly not all Wikipedia articles are of equal importance. But as source of quick, reliable basic information, Wikipedia itself has improved hugely since the very uneven days of its inception.

Many sound respected scholars now provide content because they know their students use Wikipedia articles as a guide to their topics even when banned from citing Wikipedia articles.

So, always check the facts in what you cite no matter what you cite, and let's encourage Wikipedia to grow and get stronger in the right ways--including writing for it, and writing well and accurately.
 
 
+19 # X Dane 2015-10-19 21:22
Roland where have you been for the last years. We are most certainly no longer a democracy.Those days are GONE. we are an OLIGARKy, we are totally owned by the super rich and big corporation.

They dominate everything and throw so much money into propaganda, that people who have to work hard to survive easily get hoodwinked by all their misleading adds.
 
 
+3 # gdsharpe 2015-10-21 10:42
Quoting Roland:
Wikipedia— “Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from non-democratic forms of socialism, such as the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism.”

Bernie has identified himself at times as a socialist and at other times as a democratic socialist. I don’t think many in this country fear our govt. changing away from a democracy. What they do fear is the economic aspect of socialism, which is what Bernie appears to support.

So it isn’t fair for people to say Bernie would take us down the route of Venezuela. Greece and Italy would be more like it since, he doesn’t seem to support the needed taxes on the middle class and the free market principles that make the Nordic states successful with their form of socialism.

Please show us all some examples of when he has identified himself as only a "socialist". Aside from the fact that he has obviously taken great pains to maintain his identity as a "democratic socialist", being a socialist is not a bad thing, except to the very wealthy.
You have passed the Right Propaganda training class haven't you?
 
 
+9 # pinkmondy54 2015-10-21 10:51
Roland, instead of everyone else trying to explain the what or why about Senator Bernie Sanders his actual policy stances can be found at BernieSanders.c om. He makes it clear where he stands on the issues and what is meant by Democratic Socialist. Let his policies define what he means by 'Socialist'.

In addition, there is a long video history of Sen. Sanders from his years in the House as well as in the Senate. Check out C-Span & YouTube.com. There's great video of him confronting Alan Greenspan on NAFTA, etc.

I don't know if anyone remembers back in December 2010 when Sen. Sanders, a Representative in the House, filibustered for approx. 8hrs explaining why extending the Bush Tax Cuts would not be good. Much of what he said then is what he is saying today. His filibuster was then turned into the written word by way of a book, "The Speech". A great slice of history I'm proud to have in my library.

I personally condemn any so-called news outlet that deliberately lies to it's viewers. Saying the 'main stream media' has a liberal bias doesn't make it true and is not true.

*** On that note & for what it's worth, I am often infuriated when watching said 'liberally biased' MSM. Especially, MSNBC's "Meet The Press", for example, 9 times out of 10 gives deference to their guests who would describe themselves as a republican or those who support their issues and, invariably, untruths are glossed over and left unchallenged... maddening!
 
 
+74 # cymricmorty 2015-10-19 13:14
"When the people become dominated by elitist greed, capitalism will inevitably take a tumble." -- Anonymous
 
 
+29 # guomashi 2015-10-19 14:04
Quoting cymricmorty:
"When the people become dominated by elitist greed, capitalism will inevitably take a tumble." -- Anonymous



--- unlikely
more likely feudalism will re-emerge
like it already has with corporations being the overlords.
 
 
+71 # lorenbliss 2015-10-19 13:49
Anderson Cooper's obscene wealth and his pornographic efforts to pass off secret-police Big Lies and disinformation as "journalism" make him the perfect archetype of the Josef Goebbels wanna-bes who staff USian "mainstream media." Which -- never forget -- is owned by the same piss-on-the-wor king-class trickle-downers who seized the government in the coup of 22 November 1963.
 
 
-50 # alan17b0 2015-10-19 14:10
I am usually an admirer of Mr Boardman, but I think here he isn't fair to Anderson Cooper. It seemed to me that Mr Cooper's job was to probe the candidate's weak spots, the idea being: Let's show our viewers how the candidates will handle the stuff that the Repubs will throw at them. I thought he treated all the five quite roughly, giving none of them a pass.

Alan McConnell, in Silver Spring MD
 
 
+42 # Fight Back 2015-10-19 14:31
Probing the tender areas is good journalism. I wish we had more of it, especially for the outrageous "misstatements of fact" coming from Trump the Clown. But using the opponents' negative phrasing is not, and that's what Cooper did, without even indicating that that was his source.
 
 
+56 # Saberoff 2015-10-19 15:51
Do you not think it a blatant example of "promoting a food fight" when Cooper said to Webb (paraphrasing) "As an X-Marine, what do you have to say to Bernie Sanders about his Conscientious Objector status during the Vietnam War?"

Other than enjoying watching his guests fight, what do you call that?
 
 
+36 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 16:21
yes!!!
 
 
+21 # Nominae 2015-10-19 21:10
Quoting Saberoff:
Do you not think it a blatant example of "promoting a food fight" when Cooper said to Webb (paraphrasing) "As an X-Marine, what do you have to say to Bernie Sanders about his Conscientious Objector status during the Vietnam War?"

Other than enjoying watching his guests fight, what do you call that?


... um ... The Jerry Springer Show ??? ;-D
 
 
+27 # harleysch 2015-10-19 15:18
Alan17b0 -- If Cooper was probing "weak spots", why didn't he ask Hillary about her claim that the Libyan war was a great example of the use of "smart power"? Or her claim that Obama has "saved" the U.S. economy, when what he has really done is allow Wall Street's Too Big to Fail banks to create a new bubble?
 
 
-37 # Roland 2015-10-19 17:16
It isn't Wall Street that is causing todays bubbles - it is the Fed.
 
 
+21 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-19 18:23
It most assuredly IS Wall St. creating the various bubbles that are percolating through our economy.
 
 
+13 # economagic 2015-10-19 20:40
As of today the yield on the 30-year US Treasury bond is 2.89%. While that low interest rate creates a relatively high price for those bonds (closer to the face value, as they are sold at discount), it also means that the big, smart money worldwide (the people who buy those bonds) do not expect inflation at that level over the next 30 years. There are a couple of caveats to that claim, but even though the Fed is the creature of Wall Street, after Chairman Al (despite his "irrational exuberance" jest some 20 years ago) it has become a voice of reason amid madness.

Note that Roland never states any positive economic doctrine. He apparently believes in the literal truth of the "Quantity Theory of Money," which no person who actually understands the subject takes seriously. It is one more instance of unenlightened philosophy from the century that turns out not to have been all that enlightened after all, especially in certain areas.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2015-10-19 21:19
Quoting Texas Aggie:
It most assuredly IS Wall St. creating the various bubbles that are percolating through our economy.


I never thought I'd be caught appearing to back my main man Roland here, but the Fed is - as I am sure (from the general excellent quality of your comments) you already know - not a government agency as the name was intended to make us believe.

It is, as economagic alludes to above, actually a private entity that represents a *consortium* of the Wall Street Banks.

So, on this one, oddly enough, it turns out that you two are *both* correct !
 
 
+8 # economagic 2015-10-19 20:19
Again, BULLSHIT. Where do you get these nutty notions? Not from Hayek alone.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2015-10-20 00:43
Of course, the Federal Reserve System is controlled by a handful of supra-national financial institutions, which is to say, they ARE Wall Street.
 
 
+50 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 15:47
alan17b0 asserts that
"Cooper's job was to probe the candidate's weak spots."
Really?

Who makes that assignment?

This is the FIRST Democratic debate and already
we're supposed to be hearing about weak spots?

How about a moderator who works to help the candidates
to show themselves for who they are? And to show
where they agree and dis agree? And to do so in a
context that prioritizes actually important issues?

There's a lot of people looking for weaknesses,
and to assume that Anderson Cooper will probe
with anything like judicious even-handedness
is just silly.

Hillary certainly got a pass on her Libyan war.
Bernie (and the rest) got a pass on Israel.
They all got a pass on climate change.
They all got close to a pass on Syria
(and a total pass on Yemen,
with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, avoided as well).
They all got a pass on the Iran nuclear agreement.
They all got what amounted to a pass on race,
on escalating police violence, on voter suppression....

For a "debate," it was two and a half hours
pretty thin on serious substance.
 
 
+53 # progressiveguy 2015-10-19 14:45
I wondered if anyone would write an article like this one. During the debate I became furious with Cooper and after the debate I hoped that someone would write an article like this. Apparently Cooper liked the Contras even though they were exposed time and again as death squads and drug dealers. Of course Ronald Reagan said, "I am a Contra." To me Cooper is a low class jerk, without substance or redeeming qualities. He belongs on the Fox network with those nuts.
 
 
-30 # davidg 2015-10-19 14:48
As much as I adminre Bernie, I must object to this article. You are stooping to the smear tactics of the right. AC is wealthy, so he can't possibly be objective. Only poor people are objective?

Then you claim it's very unfair to ask Bernie if he's electable. Why didn't he ask Hillary if she were electable? In effect, he did, by bringing up her flip-flops. With her it's about trust. With Bernie, it's about taking positions which almost nobody in American politics has taken. AC pointed out that Bernie supported the Sandanistas, which was perfectly true. What was he supposed to do, congratulate him on that? The point, which was obvious, is that no US government and precious few US politicians have ever taken that position, so it makes a perfect attack ad: "Sanders is completely out of step with Americans, blah blah." Indeed, AC gave Bernie an opportunity to explain his support, and why most of the rest of the world also supported them. Bernie declined, unfortunately.

I think AC asked tough questions of all the candidates. You just didn't like the one he put to Bernie, even though it was perfectly factual, because of its "implications". His question to Hillary implied that she is an unprincipled opportunist who doesn't actually believe anything she says. No complaints about that?
 
 
-42 # skylinefirepest 2015-10-19 15:30
Good comments Davidg...but in this, the extreme leftist liberal enclave, you will get red marks for telling the truth and some will even suggest that, as rsn is an elitist liberal site then maybe if you have one Conservative molecule in your body then maybe you might be happier at some other site.
 
 
+32 # Saberoff 2015-10-19 15:58
(quote) "AC pointed out that Bernie supported the Sandanistas, which was perfectly true. What was he supposed to do, congratulate him on that?"

Yep.
 
 
+45 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 16:03
davidg must not have read all of my article,
or much of anything else about the criminal Contra war,
if he really believes
"that no US government and precious few US politicians
have ever taken that position" –
so what was the Boland Amendment?

And why did Reagan risk impeachment
by covertly violating US law?

Equally false, Bernie was NOTasked about
the Sandinistas – Cooper made a dishonest assertion
(see the litany of Cooper slams outlined in my article) –
the question was about "electability" and
was inherently dishonest because it was asked
of no one else (at least three of whom appear
less "electable" than Bernie).

The question was further dishonest because it was framed
to reinforce the unexamined underlying assumption
that Bernie is not electable.

That may or may not turn out to be true.

Current evidence, with Bernie's support continuing to grow,
with Hillary's support contracting,
and with everyone else stagnating,
Bernie certainly looks competitive.

Thirteen months from now, maybe sooner,
we'll know.

Anderson Cooper acts like he knows now.
Maybe the CIA told him. ;-)))
 
 
-15 # davidg 2015-10-19 16:28
Yes, Mr. Boardman, I read all of your article, and according to Wikipedia:
"The [Boland] amendment outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes."
You are conflating a neutrality requirement with Sandanista support.

You seem to have a penchant for the ad hominem. As it happens, I have read a little something about the "criminal Contra war", and my sympathies were with the Sandanistas then, and now. But that doesn't mean that your bombastic and ill-considered article deserves my approval.

But do tell us why AC's electability question to Bernie was any more "inherently dishonest" (whatever that means) than his flip-flop question to Hillary.
 
 
+26 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 17:47
davidg seems to think that outlawing
the overthrow of another government
is not "support" of it. OK.

The conflation seems to be with the kind of "support,"
whether material or political.

As for the electabliity vs flip-flop questions,
that's pretty easy.

Questioning Sanders on his electability based on
the hostile litany Cooper used is asking Sanders to
discuss an unknowable (2016 election results)
based on assertions that are unexamined and
not factual. There's NOTHING honest about it.

"Flip-flop" is an unnecessarily pejorative term,
but is beyond argument that Hillary has changed
positions on a variety of things including
marriage equality and TPP. Perfectly fair to ask why.

Bernie has been saying the same things for decades,
and where his positions have changes, it's
perfectly fair to ask why.

[Ignoring the ad hominem bombast] ;-)))
 
 
+52 # RMF 2015-10-19 15:10
Roland -- Bernie Sanders is not advocating public ownership of the means of production per the definition you provided. Rather, he advocates greater intervention in areas of regulation and taxation. Some examples (as he stated in the debate) include a transaction tax on Wall St and raising the salary cap for social security taxation. In the regulatory area he advocates breaking up the biggest banks, and restoring Glass-Steagall. He also advocates legal changes to strengthen unions, and an increase and broadening of the federal minimum wage, along with expanded public healthcare. These are hardly radical ides. And moreover, we are all socialists to some extent, because most of us support a mixed economy in which public resources are used to support essential public functions -- something as mundane as the postal service, or as importantly essential as healthcare and public education. In the real world there is probably no such thing as pure capitalism or pure democratic socialism (although they do exist in text books and in that sense serve an important educational purpose.)
 
 
-19 # Roland 2015-10-19 21:11
The :speculation tax" (as Bernie call it), that you refer to is on stocks and bonds. I would call it an investment tax and it will hit the middle class as well. Including anyone who has put away savings for retirement.

You may not realize it, but a %15.00 min. wage is a radical idea.

Yes, we have many socialistic programs now. The question is how many can we afford without going broke or killing the economy.
 
 
+9 # tm7devils 2015-10-20 11:43
"...it will hit the middle class as well..."

Well, maybe the upper middle class...since the 1% own 85% of stocks in this country.
 
 
+4 # RMF 2015-10-21 13:22
Sanders' Wall St tax is a transaction tax, and would apply to all trades, whether they are called speculating, investing, or by the misnomer term hedging. But obviously and most importantly the tax would fall most
heavily on those who trade the most -- the hot money that contributes to the volatility in the market through short-term timing trades, seeking to sell entire portfolios, only to buy them back at a lower price -- this is the epitome of insider Wall St hot money, composed of hedge funds, trading desks at street firms, block trading depts at
investment banks, etc -- and not the middle/working class, which being real savers, would be allocating funds to long term vehicles, like index mutual funds, which avoid the churning and excessive trading associated with Wall St hot money and virtually all other actively managed mutual funds or other collective investment vehicles, such as hedge funds. (Incidentally a block is 10,000 shares or more -- before the Great Recession block trading at times
approached 50 percent of total trading volume -- more recently it has been creeping back up, and has surpassed 25 percent of volume.)
 
 
+4 # RMF 2015-10-21 13:25
Contd.
Interestingly, the GOP is in full support of a consumption tax (a national sales tax) as the burden is regressive, falling heavily on the working class. But when it comes to something as sensible as a transaction (sales) tax on Wall St they don't want to hear of it. Actually the Sanders proposal should be extended to reach derivatives and futures contracts, which in the over the counter segment is massive -- over time deregulation has encouraged the transition of trading from centralized exchanges to the more opaque over the counter markets. Taxing Wall St trading without reaching the over the counter markets will only cause a greater migration of trading from exchanges to OTC markets, so it's important the tax apply uniformly. (See the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which dramatically expanded unregulated over the counter derivatives trading.)
 
 
+4 # RMF 2015-10-21 13:27
Contd.
As statistics show wage growth has been stagnant these several decades now, with little purchasing power gains for workers against inflation, even in the face of strong growth in labor productivity. US workers do remain the
world's most productive workers (defined as output per worker per hour.) Thus, in the face of this economic backdrop an increase in the federal minimum wage is imminently sensible, so much so that it is uniformly supported by strong majorities in virtually all public polling, not to mention by a plurality of economists (in this respect the naysayers in the GOP are only a small minority.) If corporate America won't raise wages, even when supported by strong productivity growth, then we must implement policies to do it for them.

There is a circular flow to spending. As economists are wont to say, one's man spending is another man's income, so an increase in public works is actually just what the econ dr. orders. And reform of our flattened tax regime to a more progressive scale, along with adoption of a Wall St/OTC transaction tax would help finance that spending and the resulting creation of good paying jobs.
 
 
-21 # Anonymot 2015-10-19 15:27
Well, I'm probably up for a bunch of negatives, but consider another possibility.

Anderson was not just formed by his wealth and fancy schools or even exclusively by his certainly influencing CIA experience. Since he "came out" I'd suggest that his position is to do anything he can to protect Hillary from any threat as real as Sanders. Since she is apparently LGBT and very protective of the group one of the things that groups who feel victimized do is defend each other from outsiders. That's how the LGBT, with a lot of wealth and know-how, became the most powerful steam roller movement since the African-America ns in the '50s/'60s.It doesn't have any exclusive LGBT meaning, but it is human nature to do so. Just look around at every minority.

We live in a time when no one wants to be the majority except maybe the Republicans, maybe.
 
 
+34 # WBoardman 2015-10-19 16:15
Anonymot suggests (if I understand correctly)
that Cooper may have an LGBT bias for Hillary
despite her wobbly support for marriage equality
(among other issues(?)).

What does anonymot mean by
"she is apparently LGBT" ???

Anyway, if LGBT support were the key to Cooper's leanings,
logically he'd be more likely to support Bernie,
whose support of LBGT issues is older (since 1983) and
more solid than any of the other candidates (I believe):

https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/

As for "being the majority," what does that mean?
Many (most) of Bernie's positions are supported
by a majority of Americans (insofar as that is measurable).

That's one reason Hillary keeps moving "left" as media put it.

Damn country has all these leftist ideas about equality and
sharing and respect and fairness and good grief don't
let me get started on this!!!
 
 
+17 # jpmarat 2015-10-19 16:48
Sometimes hard questions are a favor. If people see you remain calm, answer credibly, the onus blows back on the questioner.
 
 
+18 # Majikman 2015-10-19 21:33
That's how I saw it, JP. Smarmy AC, obstreperous little puppy that he is, looked pitiful when the alpha wolf patted him on the head and told him to "go play". Instead of apologizing or equivocating Bernie proudly and forcefully explained his position.
 
 
+18 # jpmarat 2015-10-19 16:54
Of note is that the CIA considers Cooper "safe," "one of ours." The Establishment has a tremendous capacity to co-opt, especially those already leaning the wrong way. AC did ok on Katrina.
Even J.Kerry has been co-opted. He was a pretty good guy.
 
 
+10 # treespeaker 2015-10-19 21:16
Anderson Cooper is just a hack for the bad guys.
 
 
-5 # charlottescot 2015-10-20 10:46
I am a very solid Sanders supporter and I am a bit shocked by some of the comments I'm reading. I also used to be a journalist and I thought Anderson Cooper did an excellent job with the debate. Anderson Cooper's wealth has ever affected his journalism and to even imply it might is outrageous. I thought he had strong questions for all candidates. I detected no bias whatsoever.
 
 
-4 # BKnowswhitt2 2015-10-20 13:04
CNN is an arm of the Democratic Party simple as that. That mainstream and shitty outlet for 'News' is no longer great when it was owned and run by Ted Turner and before Time Warner bought it all .. we have big banks and big media running our 'Democracy' and show today .. and their modus operendi is 'reaction' to events not action or real reporting .. they control the message .. the two parties control the 'debates' ... so nothing new here .. elections are about who spins the best and controls the spin .. this is an uphill battle for Bernie and will be all the way .. Biden is a better candidate to win the White House .. but most likely he'll acquiesce and let the 'Reactionists' run the show on a long shot gamble that they'll ultimately outspend the other side to an eventual Hillary victory .. I say they lose with her ...
 
 
-2 # randrjwr 2015-10-21 12:13
Quoting the 1st sentence: "CNN is an arm of the Democratic Party simple as that."

I was wondering why CNN has given so much attention to The Donald--could it be they are just trying to show what an ass he is? Maybe you are right about CNN being an arm of the Dems.
 
 
-2 # BKnowswhitt2 2015-10-21 13:42
Yes I do think that. Fox covers some factual reporting on Hillary and others. With Biden officially not running as of today's update .. assures that Dem Party candidate is all eggs in one basket with the rotten egg of Hillary .. once it's Hillary and if it's The Donald .. are you going to tell me they'll then run positive stuff on Trump? If so you are drinking some kind of Koolade .. James Jones style ...
 
 
-1 # BKnowswhitt2 2015-10-21 16:38
To further clarify .. I dont' think Hillary couldn't do the job .. the 'Rotten Egg' is meant to refer to she's the only one we'll end up with .. the Dems will not turn out in high numbers .. and she is there by default and cooked up by all liberal media .. also cooking it up that she'll be the first woman .. the electorate as a whole does not give a rats ass about that one .. and so Biden could have run on some good stuff 8 years record all of which I don't agree with necessarily but for the most part .. and he his good in debate .. so the result and by Democratic Machine Party Politics which includes CNN and Anderson Pooper ..
 
 
+9 # Gary Reber 2015-10-20 13:07
Who was the richest person in CNN’s Democratic presidential debate?
The richest person in the Democratic presidential candidate debate on October 10 was not a candidate. The richest person on that Las Vegas stage was CNN moderator and Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper, whose $100 million net worth ($100,000,000) is greater than all the candidates’ worth combined (about $84,000,000).

This a display of wealth that is attributed to OWNING wealth-creating , income-producin g capital assets, of which Anderson Cooper knows well as well as all the other candidates with the exception of Bernie Sanders, whose net worth is in the realm of $700,000 or less. As a contrast Hillary Clinton's net worth is in the realm of $45 million.

What was not questioned or debated was concentrated capital ownership or why the system is rigged to prevent those who or propertyless and without savings (the 99 percent) from acquiring productive capital assets as they are formed in the future using insured, interest-free capital credit, repayable out of the future earnings of the investments. This is the ONLY way to turn "have-nots" into "haves," create significant "customers with money" and propel the healthy expansion of the American economy to create general affluence for EVERY child, woman and man through inclusive prosperity, inclusive opportunity, and inclusive economic justice.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2015-10-21 19:25
baloney! boardman has no idea what b-s- he spouts - cooper moderated an excellent debate!

- among other things for which cooper is to be congratulated, he started out by asking EACH candidate to respond to what the public perceives as their greatest flaw, asked hardball to EACH, for bernie it was - “Senator Sanders. A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?”

bernie's background is an open book - there was nothing unfair about the question - it is the key question that bernie has to answer, just to explain his background - it was no surprise or trick question - does boardman think bernie wins the primary by running away from his background? - evidently so! - i pity boardman, he missed a great debate! - this is the 800 pound gorilla question bernie's campaign MUST answer!

it was the perfect question and bernie gave the perfect answer!

you don't get a good debate if you pitch anybody softballs - you get a clunker, no way to hit one out of the park! - great debate! great question! wolf blitzer has big shoes to fill! for her hardball repertoire of pitches, please bring on rachel maddow! hope to see cooper moderate another debate next year, he'll do! go bernie!
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2015-10-22 12:10
Robbee omits the Cooper assertions –
not questions –
that I found objectionable.

Of course "electability" is a fair question,
and should be fairly asked of any candidate
(what would Jim Webb have said?),
but it wasn't.

Omitting my argument, Robbee creates a straw man argument,
or maybe he just didn't read carefully.
 
 
+1 # BKnowswhitt2 2015-10-21 22:02
Finally to not understand that the entire 'debate' process is cooked. We have Machine Politics on both sides. Repuke debates are on Fox . Dempuke debates on CNN they are both arms of those teams .. the debates should be held on a neutral government run using the people's money stage and no celebrity phoney talking heads like Cooper and the like ... the entire process is cooked and mostly decided before your 'vote' ever gets counted .. it's all one big sham and joke and no criteria to be the next leader of the free world ... just unqualified celebrity style shit show of fucking assholes .. this is an alternative news site .. wake the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2015-10-22 12:11
That's what I wrote about, isn't it? ;-)))
 
 
+3 # antonk 2015-10-21 22:24
Let me start with a few caveats.

I am a supporter of Bernie Sanders, consider myself a socialist, and I agree with the article that it is courageous to be a supporter of the Sandinistas, ridiculous to claim that having honeymooned in the Soviet Union, or to not be a capitalist are drawbacks for any candidate. I am also a long time reader and supporter of Reader Supported News, and I have never written in to comment before.

My issue is with the tone of this article, and many of the comments.

All of the above are true, and it's also true that I am an acquaintance of Anderson Cooper's, as I went to both Dalton and Yale with him, two years below him. I haven't seen or talked to him in over 20 years, but he bought me my first beer in college, my first night of freshmen year. I don't have a TV, so I have barely ever watched him as a journalist for all these many years. But from my experience of him many years ago, he has always seemed like an honorable person.

I also only watched segments of the debate, so I don't have an opinion of how he handled himself as moderator all told. But from the segments I watched, I did not have the sense that Anderson Cooper was trying to purposely sabotage the Sanders campaign. For all I know, he might be voting for Bernie Sanders.

I am a high school science teacher, so I am not part of the 0.1%.

I'm sure I will be slammed for this, but I thought it was worth it.
 
 
+3 # cashthischeck 2015-10-22 06:30
Well said sir, i share your caveats and more, and do hereby viciously, prematurely, and preemptively rain anal fire on any who choose to slamonya...
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2015-10-22 12:19
atonk offers a nice perspective on Anderson Cooper,
who gives every appearance on TV of being
a friendly, thoughtful, pleasant person.

My argument was not that Cooper was trying to sabotage
the Sanders campaign – I have no reason to think
Cooper is for or against Sanders personally.

But the assertions I took issue with –
with which atonk seems to agree –
are both deeply dishonest AND all too typical
of what we get from talking heads of all sorts.

Careful integrity is not a ratings-getter.

And atonk – especially as a science teacher –
what do you make of Cooper's omission of climate change,
as well as Bernie's mention of it at the end?

Which end of THAT spectrum is actually serious
(if any?).
 
 
+3 # antonk 2015-10-23 08:29
Hi William Boardman,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

To the extent that your article was complaining about what are the ways in which the TV news strive to increase their ratings over all,
I agree completely. And it is clear that Anderson Cooper has been
successful in that corporate media world for a long time. It was
the implication that Anderson Cooper had a significant personal
agenda because of his background that I took issue with - and
like I said before - I felt it mostly in the tone.

I loved Bernie's closing statement, summarizing the main points of his
whole campaign, including putting climate change in such a prominent place. I liked what Michael Moore said on these pages
right after the debate, that Bernie Sanders made history in putting
significant issues in the spotlight of a presidential debate, as a major
candidate. It's incredibly exciting. For what it's worth, that making
history happened under CNN and Anderson Cooper's watch,
despite their corporate agenda.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2015-10-24 21:52
thank you, atonk.

For the record, I did not intend to imply that Cooper
had a significant personal agenda because of his background.

I have no way of knowing. And his background admits of
a variety of possible agendas.

What strikes me as significant about his background
is how it fits with his portrayal of a defender of the
status quo/establishme nt which he was born into.

I try not to read people's minds (impossible)
but to assess them on their behavior.
 
 
+1 # cashthischeck 2015-10-22 06:22
[
The right believes their policies will do the most good for everyone.
Might i suggest, Roland, the Wright 'purports' 'suggests' or maybe even believes others dim enough to believe such utter nonsense?
 
 
+3 # DAKOTA 2015-10-22 17:34
I am a huge fan of BOTH Sanders and Cooper thus I will not be taking a side. I do wish to offer a little background info on Cooper whose mother is Gloria Vanderbilt...al so known as the "poor little rich girl." Pls. read about her horrible childhood on the web. Cooper's father was a dirt-poor Mississippi kid who managed to get to college, then to NY where he, at first acted, then wrote plays. He died on an operating table when Cooper was about 17 (?). Some years later Cooper's younger brother committed suicide by jumping off a balcony while his mother, Gloria, was pleading with him not to kill himself. As for Cooper's journalism career: he, UN-sponsored, went to Africa with a camera in hand to make documentaries. After he had finished videos, he proceeded to approach companies to buy the videos. Finally an educational TV company entered into a contract with Cooper. Up until then, Cooper had no idea whether he was successful or not. His career as a journalist was validated. $$$$ - Cooper will not inherit any of his mother's money. He is fine with that as he thinks inherited wealth can stiffle creativity and effort. Some commenters need to do a bit of research before they write.
 
 
+2 # antonk 2015-10-23 09:09
Just so you know,his brother who committed suicide was his older brother - about four years older as I remember.
 
 
+2 # Jibbsy 2015-10-24 01:09
Oh come on, this article is completely silly. Every single article that's critical of Sanders says his "socialism" is the reason. Every conservative criticism of him blasts him for it. There have been any number of people who have expressed approval of him, but said they don't see how a "socialist" could ever get elected in the US. It is THE question on people's minds about Sanders, and it's inevitable the he'd have to address it in a debate. Anderson Cooper was doing his job - asking the question that everyone has about Bernie. And I'm glad he did. Bernie's answer was brilliant, and I think it gave a lot of people the understanding they needed to feel ok about voting for him. You can bet he'll be asked about socialism again and again - by people who are truly hostile to it. Anderson Cooper, though, is not. I thought he asked great questions - the questions people wanted answers to. That's the point of the whole thing, isn't it?
 
 
0 # Scott479 2015-10-25 07:27
To paraphrase an actual Anderson Cooper quote-"It's hard to apologize when you are tea bagging the cash"
 
 
+1 # tgemberl 2015-10-25 12:35
"Supporting the illegal Contra war, run on drug money, is an unprincipled position, but Cooper clearly implies that it’s still his position."

I think that's a claim Boardman doesn't document in this article. Just because he worked for the CIA for a short time and doesn't clearly disavow it, it's still his position? You have to give better evidence than that.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN