RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Singing About Killing People v. Constantly Doing It Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7181"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 10 December 2012 15:46

Greenwald writes: "Whatever else one wants to say, the US is a country that, for more than a decade, has loudly and continuously declared itself to be a 'nation at war'."

South Korean rapper Psy performs Gangnam Style in New York. (photo: Jason Decrow/Invision/AP)
South Korean rapper Psy performs Gangnam Style in New York. (photo: Jason Decrow/Invision/AP)


Singing About Killing People v. Constantly Doing It

By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK

10 December 12

 

Americans would benefit from less outrage at anti-US sentiment and more energy toward understanding why it's so widespread

hich of these two stories is causing more controversy and outrage in the US?

New York Daily News, Friday:


"Fiercely anti-American lyrics from Korean rapper Psy have been unearthed just two weeks before the star is scheduled to perform for President Obama.

"The 'Gangnam Style' singer calls for US soldiers to be killed in one song, prompting a short-lived petition to ax Psy from the bill at the Christmas in Washington celebration.

"In 2004, Psy rapped on a South Korean metal band's song, 'Dear American', at a protest concert, The Washington Post reported. 'Kill those f---ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives', he said. 'Kill those f---ing Yankees who ordered them to torture. Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers. Kill them all slowly and painfully.'

"Two years earlier, after a pair of Korean schoolgirls were mowed down by a U.S.-operated armored vehicle, Psy again expressed vitriol toward America. Onstage, he smashed a plastic model of a U.S. tank into pieces as the crowd cheered, The Korea Herald reported.

"Psy apologized in a statement to the Daily News, adding that the song in question is from nearly a decade ago, and was 'part of a deeply emotional reaction to the war in Iraq and the killing of two Korean schoolgirls.'"

The Guardian, Friday:


"The US military is facing fresh questions over its targeting policy in Afghanistan after a senior army officer suggested that troops were on the lookout for 'children with potential hostile intent'".

"In comments which legal experts and campaigners described as 'deeply troubling', army Lt Col Marion Carrington told the Marine Corp Times that children, as well as 'military-age males', had been identified as a potential threat because some were being used by the Taliban to assist in attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. . . .

"In the article, headlined 'Some Afghan kids aren't bystanders', Carrington referred to a case this year in which the Afghan national police in Kandahar province said they found children helping insurgents by carrying soda bottles full of potassium chlorate.

"The piece also quoted an unnamed marine corps official who questioned the 'innocence' of Afghan children, particularly three who were killed in a US rocket strike in October. Last month, the New York Times quoted local officials who said Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, eight, from Helmand's Nawa district had been killed while gathering dung for fuel.

"However, the US official claimed that, before they called for the strike on suspected insurgents planting improvised explosive devices, marines had seen the children digging a hole in a dirt road and that 'the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission'. . . .

"'When you get to the suggestion that children with potentially hostile intent may be perceived to be legitimate targets is deeply troubling and unlawful,' [said Pardiss Kebriaei, senior attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a specialist in targeted killings]."

Whatever else one wants to say, the US is a country that, for more than a decade, has loudly and continuously declared itself to be a "nation at war". It's not "at war" in any one county, but in many countries around the globe.

In the last four years alone, it has used drones to end people's lives in six predominantly Muslim country (probably more). Under its Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader, it has repeatedly wiped out entire families (including just this week), slaughtered dozens of children at a time, targeted and killed people rescuing and grieving its victims, and either deliberately or recklessly dropped bombs on teenagers (including its own citizens), then justified it with the most foul and morally deranged rationale.

It embraces and props up the world's most repressive tyrants. It isolates itself from the world and embraces blatant double standards in order to enable the worst behavior of its client states. It continues to maintain a global network of prisons where people are kept indefinitely in cages with no charges. It exempts itself and its leaders from the international institutions of justice while demanding that the leaders of other, less powerful states be punished there. And it is currently in the process of suffocating a nation of 75 million people with an increasingly sadistic sanctions regime, while proudly boasting about it and threatening more.

It spent years imprisoning even Muslim journalists with no charges. And then there's that little fact about how, less than a decade ago, it created a worldwide torture regime and then launched an aggressive war that destroyed a nation of 26 million people, one that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.

Those are all just facts. And while there is no shortage of Americans willing to step up and dutifully justify some or all of those acts, it's so astonishing to watch people express surprise and bewilderment and anger when they discover that this behavior causes people in the world to intensely dislike the United States.

If you want your country to rule the world as an aggressive and militaristic empire, then accept the inevitable consequence of that: that there will be huge numbers of people in the world who resent and even hate your country for that behavior. Don't cheer while your country constantly kills, invades, occupies, and dominates the internal affairs of countless other nations - and then expect to be liked. Immorality aside, producing this reaction is one reason not to do such things. This kind of imperial behavior, inevitably and in every era, generates extreme levels of animosity and, ultimately, returned violence. That's why George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address, warned against all of this:

"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. . . .

"Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."

The reaction to this story about PSY's lyrics is quite redolent of the reaction of Americans to the 9/11 attack. Prior to the 9/11 attack, the US had spent decades propping up and arming the most repressive dictators in the Muslim world with the clear intent to suppress the views of the populations and ensure subservience to US interests. It overthrew or blocked their democratically supported leaders. Its decade-long sanctions regime against Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people while strengthening Saddam, its former ally, and a top US official coldly told the world when asked about dead Iraqi children that it was "worth it". Its steadfast support of Israel shielded the civilian-killing aggression of that nation from all forms of challenge or accountability. It bombed and destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that kept large numbers of people alive.

All of these facts are, and long have been, widely discussed in most of the world, where they have generated simmering, intense fury. As one small example: the Sudanese pharmaceutical factor destroyed in the Clinton years is now a shrine, accompanied by what the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson this year described as enduring "bitterness and anger at what is widely seen as an unjustified strike".

But most of these facts are largely suppressed, at the very least steadfastly ignored, in establishment US media discourse. That was why the 9/11 attack produced that truly bizarre though understandable reaction on the part of the US public: why do they hate us? The premise of that question, of course, was that the US is a country that simply minds its own business, doesn't harm or bother anyone, simply wants peace for the world, and it's thus inconceivable that anyone would ever want to harm it.

For someone who believes that, who sees the world that way, that post-9/11 bewilderment was natural: why would anyone possibly have such animosity toward the US, of all countries? When an answer to that question was needed, the US government and its media - rather than tell its population the truth about what the actual, well-known, long-standing grievances were - manufactured the self-flattering "They-Hate-Us-For-Our-Freedom" mythology and fed it to them. And many have been eating it up ever since.

The potency of this propaganda is what causes even federal judges who preside over terrorism cases to express genuine shock and confusion as to how someone could possibly be willing to plot to bomb American cities when they know that the bomb will likely even kill children. These federal judges have to have it slowly explained to them by the defendants that the US has been doing exactly that in their country and many other countries for years, and they resorted to similar violence out of a desperate inability to see any other alternatives for stopping US violence.

Obviously, artistic license or not, what is advocated by the lyrics sung by PSY (attacking and torturing the family members of US soldiers) cannot be justified, just as the targeting of innocent civilians on 9/11 cannot be. Still, singing about killing innocent people is not in the same universe as doing it, yet many Americans infuriated about the former express little if any condemnation of the latter when done by their own government. More to the point, to react to expressions of extreme anti-American sentiments - including the desire to harm US soldiers - as though they're the slightest bit surprising or irrational is itself warped and irrational.

Extreme animosity toward the US continues to be the rule, not the exception, in the Arab and Muslim world, and, especially at the time these lyrics were sung by PSY, was pervasive in South Korea as well. There are actual reasons for this, many of which are quite rational.

We like to tell ourselves that anti-American animosity is produced by propaganda from foreign factions hostile to the US. Actually, that belief is the one that is the by-product of propaganda. The acts of the US government that generate this hostility are rarely discussed in US political discourse, though they are widely discussed in most of the rest of the world. Americans would benefit from spending much less time and energy expressing outrage and offense at anti-American sentiment, and far more time and energy trying to understand why it's so widespread and intense.

UPDATE

From Associated Press today:

"The U.S. military has detained more than 200 Afghan teenagers who were captured in the war for about a year at a time at a military prison next to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations . . . .

"If the average age is 16, 'This means it is highly likely that some children were as young as 14 or 13 years old when they were detained by U.S. forces,' Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's human rights program, said Friday.

"'I've represented children as young as 11 or 12 who have been at Bagram,' said Tina M. Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, which represents adult and juvenile Bagram detainees."

Imagine if a foreign army were imprisoning American teenagers on US soil for years without any charges or due process. Would anyone have difficulty understanding why there were extreme levels of hostility and a desire for violence against the country doing that?

Speaking of songs that advocate violence, recall that roughly 46% of Americans voted for this person to be president after he sang this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Of course, the 53% who voted for his opponent ended up enabling all sorts of violence against innocent people around the world. Anyway . . . aren't those lyrics sung by PSY so awful and outrageous? Why would anyone harbor such anger toward America?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Actual Cost of Washington's Clever Debt Deal Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Monday, 10 December 2012 15:30

Pierce writes: "This is a great rock rolling down the hill in American health-care, and there simply is no 'private-sector' solution to it that isn't laughable on its face."

President Barack Obama as he returns to the White House in Washington after a day of campaign events in Miami, 10/11/12. (photo: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
President Barack Obama as he returns to the White House in Washington after a day of campaign events in Miami, 10/11/12. (photo: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)


The Actual Cost of Washington's Clever Debt Deal

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

10 December 12

 

onathan Chait and Ezra Klein have both been taking a terrible hiding for suggesting - and, in Chait's case, recommending - that raising the eligibility age for Medicare might be the the key to breaking the impasse as we slouch toward the Gentle Fiscal Incline. I disagree with both of them, for reasons we'll get to in a minute, but I'm not inclined to crank up the Enola Gay on this issue. I would just gently point out that almost every part of the primary rationale for doing what they suggest - that any deal is better than none, and that some Democratic blood-sacrifice on entitlements is required so that John Boehner is not cannibalized by his caucus - is pure Beltway group-think in that it renders almost insignificant the human cost out in the country of the policy proposed to solve what is essentially a conundrum devised by unaccountable elites.

For example, let's talk for a moment about a particularly nasty dog I happen to have in this fight - namely, Alzheimer's Disease.

We are on the brink of an epidemic of AD in this country. There are 5.4 million people with the disease right now, and there are estimated to be another 15 million people - mostly, aging spouses and economically stressed children - providing what amounts to $210 billion in unpaid care. (There are estimated to be 800,000 people with the disease who are living alone.) The disease already costs $140 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. By 2050, it is estimated, and assuming a cure is not found, the total cost of caring for Alzheimer's patients could soar past $1 trillion.

The current plan being bruited about in Washington would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 years of age. This is the low end of the Alzheimer's spectrum, but the increase in diagnosed cases is still significant, rising three percent per thousand people nationally just between 2000 and 2008. In John Boehner's Ohio, there are 13,000 people roughly within that window with the disease. There are 7,100 in Eric Cantor's Virginia, and 5700 in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin. All of these people represent not only the ravages of the disease, but the severe emotional and economic strain that it puts on their families. All of these people represent a considerable amount of pain that is not being factored into the shrewd political calculations that get you on the Sunday shows.

Make this deal, and what do all these people and their families do? Shop for private insurance for another two years? Does that sound remotely practical to anyone who are not: a) members of Congress enjoying the benefits of a government-run, single-payer health care system?, or b) well-remunerated pundits who can afford a Cadillac plan of their own. This is a great rock rolling down the hill in American health-care, and there simply is no "private-sector" solution to it that isn't laughable on its face. Raising the Medicare eligibility age will hurt people. It will hasten their deaths. It will bankrupt their families. These people will not appreciate how clever you all were.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
10 Key Operatives Who Got the President Re-Elected Print
Monday, 10 December 2012 14:55

Dickinson writes: "Now that the dust has settled and the vote totals are nearly certified, it's clear that the 2012 presidential election was never a squeaker."

President Obama hugs his campaign manager Jim Messina at campaign headquarters in Chicago. (photo: Pete Souza)
President Obama hugs his campaign manager Jim Messina at campaign headquarters in Chicago. (photo: Pete Souza)


10 Key Operatives Who Got the President Re-Elected

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

10 December 12

 

ow that the dust has settled and the vote totals are nearly certified, it's clear that the 2012 presidential election was never a squeaker. It was a landslide. Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by more than 4.6 million votes nationwide, driving the Republican down to a karmic 47 percent of the popular vote.

Obama didn't win on merit alone. His high-tech, data-driven, socially-networked campaign was one for the history books, turning out key demographic blocks in astonishing numbers. Consider that in Ohio, the president's team drove the African-American share of the electorate to up to 15 percent, versus 11 percent in 2008. That's more than 200,000 new votes for the president in a state decided by a margin of 165,000. In other words: That was the ballgame.

President Obama owes his second term to a masterful campaign team - few of whom are household names. Here are ten heroes of the Obama 2012 team:

1. Jim Messina

Campaign Manager

Messina was never a popular choice among rank-and-file Democrats to lead the president's campaign. In the White House, he'd cut many of the most unpalatable backroom deals to secure the passage of Obamacare. Worse, in previous campaigns in his home state of Montana, his record included airing this awful gay-baiting TV ad. And the one error he's admitted to in the post-election aftermath won't make progressives happy: "We waited too long to get into the SuperPAC world," Messina told an audience at Harvard's Institute of Politics' quadrennial debriefing of the presidential campaigns' top brass.

But at the helm of Obama 2012, Messina proved himself a devilishly capable campaign manager. He had ridden shotgun to manager David Plouffe in the historic 2008 campaign, and Messina leveraged that experience to build a campaign that empowered the president's grassroots supporters as never before. Messina began by voraciously reading about the past century of presidential campaigns. But he also leaned on the expertise of outside-the-Beltway advisers like Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google, who encouraged Messina to tap top private sector talent.

From the start, Messina broke down the electorate into the president's most winnable demographics - unmarried women, Latinos, African Americans, LGBT voters - and targeted them with a passion for data and analytics unfamiliar in the trust-your-gut world of political consulting. "We knew exactly who we had to go get," Messina said, "and that's how we got the turnout numbers that mattered."

2. Michael Slaby

Chief Integration and Innovation Officer

The 2012 campaign gave the Obama campaign one luxury that it didn't have in 2008: Time. And the campaign made the most of that asset by engineering an in-house solution to a problem that had flummoxed previous campaigns. Namely, that the campaign's databases couldn't talk to each other. The party's voter file, Obama's fundraising database, third-party commercial data - they didn't synch up.

The task of data integration fell to Michael Slaby, who launched a project - codename: Narwhal - that gave the Obama campaign a key advantage. If John Q. Smith from Columbus, Ohio, texted the campaign a $10 donation, they could know immediately where he lived, how he'd voted in the past, who his Facebook friends were, what issues were likely to drive his support, and the likelihood of converting him from a one-time giver to a big-time volunteer for the campaign.

To accomplish this task, Slaby recruited for the Obama campaign as if it were a fledgling tech firm, drawing from the deep talent pool of Chicago's tech scene to build what one of his hires called a $1 billion, "disposable startup."

3. Rayid Ghani

Chief Data Scientist

It's one thing to aggregate terabytes of data on the American electorate. It's quite another to make that data give up its secrets. For that job, the campaign snatched up Rayid Ghani, an expert in artificial intelligence from Accenture Labs, to be its Chief Data Scientist - an unprecedented job title on a presidential campaign.

Ghani's directive was to devise algorithms that could sift through the massive amounts of data collected by the campaign. If you used Facebook to log onto the Obama campaign's website, you revealed to them your entire social network. The campaign also leveraged the work of 2 million volunteers who interviewed more than 24 million voters - and took notes that could be plumbed for their "motivations, attitudes, and protestations."

The campaign used the Ghani's top-shelf analytics to rank target voters individually. "We could build support scores for every single voter in battleground states," Messina said at a late-November Politico event. "1 to 100, on whether they would support us.

The data also allowed the campaign to tease out how to best message these target voters - information that could be pushed out to door-knockers in the field. The guiding principle for Ghani's and the campaign's work, he said in a recent interview, was simple: "Does it get me more votes? If not, I don't care."

4. Harper Reed

Chief Technology Officer

No one personified the hacker vibe of the Obama campaign more than Harper Reed, the campaign's Chief Technology Officer, who sported a caveman beard, Buddy Holly glasses and ear piercings. When Reed was hired, Jim Messina reportedly told him: "Welcome to the team. Don't fuck it up."

Reed oversaw the creation of in-house tech tools, the most powerful of which was Dashboard - the campaign's all-in-one solution to empowering organizers and managing their efforts. Dashboard was a web tool that could be accessed by mobile devices as well as desktop computers, helping guide a volunteer's efforts - whether the job was making calls, registering new voters, door knocking or turning out the vote on Election Day.

A hierarchical social network, Dashboard gave volunteers on the ground a platform with which to communicate with Obama 2012 team members in their neighborhood and even track their performance against their peers'. More important, the program fed data up the chain of command to paid field organizers, regional managers, and back to Chicago, so that the campaign could measure the performance of its field operation in real time.

The Romney campaign's tool designed to monitor turnout on election day, Orca, was never properly tested and failed disastrously in the crunch. By contrast, Reed stress-tested his programs and systems in live-action role play simulations. "We worked through every possible disaster situation," Reed told the Atlantic. "We did three actual all-day sessions of destroying everything we had built."

5. Jeremy Bird

Field General

Organizing the Obama campaign's unprecedented army of get-out-the-vote volunteers was Jeremy Bird, a former Harvard divinity student who took to political organizing as though it were his higher calling. Bird leveraged the technology of Dashboard to organize far beyond the campaign office. "We could run neighborhood races," he said at Harvard. Yes, the Obama campaign outpaced team Romney with its network of campaign offices in the swing states - 786 to 284, by one academic's count. But for team Obama, each of those offices was just a hub for a network of volunteer field offices, each headed by a "neighborhood team leader" who had been rigorously trained up to the competence of a paid staffer, who organized in the precincts of actual voters. As a result, team Obama had an exponential advantage over Romney. "We had 30,000 neighborhood team leaders who did basically nothing but volunteer for us full-time," Messina said.

"Our volunteer neighborhood team leaders owned the campaign," Bird said. "They had 8-10 precincts and they knew how many people they needed to register, knew how many people they had to persuade. They knew where the polling locations were because their kids went to school there, they went to church there." Bird admitted that the campaign's biggest trouble spot - especially early on - was the youth vote. "We knew we had to organize meticulously and doggedly on these college campuses," he said. On a campus like Ohio State, that meant ramping up the number of organizers from two in 2008 to as many as ten in 2012. The campaign had "the wind at our back" in 2008, Bird said. "This time we knew we had to grind it out."

6. Teddy Goff

Digital Director

Teddy Goff directed the Obama campaign's digital operations. That included handling the campaign's email list for fundraising. The campaign famously A/B tested the efficacy of different asks to small groups - emails beginning with "hey" were particularly effective - before blasting the best performer to the entire list. The end result: $690 million raised online, up from $500 million in 2008.

But Goff was also captain of the campaign's social media outreach. In the 2008 campaign, Twitter was in its infancy, and Facebook (at 1/10th its current size) played a bit role in the campaign's outreach. By the end of 2012, in contrast, the president had nearly 24 million Twitter followers and 34 million Facebook friends.

That gave the campaign a direct line of communication to distribute high-quality shareable content - videos, fact checks, you name it - to millions of supporters who could lobby their friends. "People really trust their friends, not political advertising," Goff said. "That's why we put so much effort into making sure our supporters could be effective ambassadors for the campaign."

Social networks also gave the campaign a lifeline to contact sporadic voters. Goff said the campaign didn't have phone numbers for as many 50 percent of its get-out-the-vote targets under age 30. But they could reach 85 percent of those voters through a Facebook connection of another supporter. This "targeted sharing" - friends lobbying friends on behalf of the campaign through Facebook - was a true revolution in digital campaigning, one the Obama team credits for nearly repeating the wave-election turnout of 2008.

In contrast to the relentless negativity of the TV ad war, Goff's social media outreach also provided supporters "a whole different campaign," he says, full of positive messages about supporting the middle class and fighting for education-"uplifting stuff."

And Twitter in particular, gave the campaign a new way to capitalize on the most polarizing elements of the GOP campaign, whether it was the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's VP - "he was highly meme-able," said Goff - or providing an instant response to Clint Eastwood's empty-chair lecture at the GOP convention, Tweeting out a picture of Obama in a chair reserved for the president saying "this seat's taken." "At the time," Goff said, "that was the second most retweeted thing we ever did-second only to the same sex marriage announcement."

7. David Axelrod

Senior Adviser

As he did in 2008, David Axelrod reprised his role as the campaign's big-picture strategist. Immediately after the shellacking of the 2010 election, Axelrod recalled at the Harvard conference, he recognized that "the gravitational pull in the GOP was very much to the right" and that any plausible Republican candidate was going to "have to pass through that tollbooth to be nominated."

Staking a bet that Romney was indeed the inevitable nominee, Axelrod was determined to draw out the nominating process and make Romney pay the price the price for his "Faustian bargains" with the GOP base. "It set us up to seize the middle," he said.

Specifically, the Obama campaign made itself a player in the GOP primaries by hitting Romney then - not in the general election - for his flip flopping. "By introducing the issue of the alacrity with which he switched positions," Axelrod said, "we could lengthen the Republican primary process. Core Republicans would be doubtful of his convictions."

The result was that Romney had to court the far right by staking out extreme positions on issues like immigration, and even throw a Hail Mary by choosing right-wing darling Paul Ryan to be his running mate. Despite those heroic contortions, Axelrod gloated, "he never did solidify the base."

8. Stephanie Cutter

Deputy Campaign Manager

Every campaign needs an attack dog and someone to call "bullshit." Obama 2012 found both skills in Stephanie Cutter, the most high-profile woman on staff, whose nickname in Chicago was "The Ninja."

Cutter rose to prominence in political circles as a fixer, helping patch up Bill Clinton's image after the Monica Lewinsky debacle. But she had also been the communications chief for John Kerry in 2004, and, fairly or unfairly, shouldered much of the blame for that campaign's failure to contest the attacks by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Cutter clearly learned from that scarring experience, leading the Obama campaign's rapid response to the flamboyant lies of the Romney campaign, in particular with straight-to-the-camera, this-is-how-it-really-is-folks YouTube videos like this one setting the record straight on Obama and Romney's plans for Medicare.

Positioning herself as the campaign's trusted voice of reason also made Cutter an effective attack dog, and she savaged the Romney campaign with gusto. When Romney picked Ryan, Cutter recalled at Harvard, "they weren't ready to answer whether Romney supported Ryan's agenda. They didn't have clean answers on whether he supported the Ryan budget - but we had Romney on record for so long supporting the Ryan budget. Romney had called Ryan 'the intellectual leader of the Republican party.'"

9. David Simas

Director of Opinion Research

David Simas ran the single most sophisticated polling operation in the history of presidential politics. And his operation helped not only guide the campaign's message on Romney's Bain record and building a better future for the middle class, it also gave the campaign deep confidence going into election day that it was on target for victory.

Simas helped turn Romney's biggest strength - his technical knowledge about the economy - into a major weakness, fine tuning the campaign's attacks on Bain Capital as an instrument of vulture capitalism. "The importance of Bain was to basically give him the technical expertise [argument]," Simas said at Harvard, "but essentially say just because he's been successful doesn't mean that you, as a middleclass family, are going to benefit from it."

Simas helped Obama find his best message for a contrasting vision on the economy - a "middle class security message." He was surprised, he said, that by a 55 to 39 margin, Americans said that "a vibrant and strong middle class was really the key" to growing the economy.

As the general election heated up, the Obama campaign had three separate sets of polling that measured the battleground. One, a weekly (and eventually daily) poll of the battleground by the campaign's in-house pollster, Joel Beneson. Two, a suite of state-based pollsters, experts on their home demography, who conducted sophisticated surveys across ten states. And third, a separate nightly survey headed up by the campaign's analytics department that interviewed 9,000 battleground voters every night, giving the campaign what Messina called "a very deep look at the electorate."

Messina said Simas' tri-pronged polling operation gave the campaign "real confidence" of victory because "all three were saying the same thing." Added Axelrod: "We were never behind in our own polling - never." The media's horserace coverage and spin from the Romney camp, he said, gave the campaign an "illusion of volatility," but "this race was fundamentally stable throughout."

10. Jim Margolis

Senior Adviser, Adman

Jim Margolis led the president's TV ad blitz, outfoxing Mitt Romney and his allies to air far more television spots despite being outspent. The key, Margolis said at Harvard, was keeping more money in-house. In total the Obama campaign aired more than half a million of its own ads, compared to just 190,000 aired by Romney campaign. Romney's allies tried to make up the difference. And the GOP machine ultimately spent $135 million more on television than did Obama and Democratic allies.

But while candidates themselves qualify for the lowest rates broadcasters offer, SuperPAC players were forced to pay what the market would bear. That meant Margolis and his team were spending a half - or even a third - of what Karl Rove's American Crossroads was paying for the same airtime.

The ad team also integrated seamlessly with the high-powered analytics of the data-driven Obama campaign. The campaign relied on incredibly detailed, commercially available data gathered from the from the set-top boxes of Americans in the battleground. "That information could then be combined with the voter file and all the other information we had," said Margolis, which allowed the campaign, "in a much more targeted way, [to] speak to who we wanted to speak to." By leading the campaign to air spots on who'da-thunk-it networks like TV Land - the channel for rerun addicts - Margolis said the analytics gave the ad team a "15 percent additional efficiency" in spending donor dollars on ads that would actually move votes.

Perhaps most important, Margolis and the rest of the Obama team made a bold call to hit the air hard and early attacking Romney on his business record. "One of the key decisions we made," Axelrod said at Harvard, "was to frontload our ad spending on TV from May through August on the theory that that's when it would have the greatest impact." It was a gamble. The danger was that the campaign would deplete its war chest and get viciously outspent in the home stretch.

But it was a good bet. "That frontloading helped to set the stage in these voters' minds," Axelrod said. "When the 47 percent video came out, all of that work that had been done put that in the appropriate context for these voters."

With a successful convention, the Obama team was able to reload for the final ad war, already having done Mitt Romney's reputation severe damage. "Our strategy," Axelrod said, "was much more effective."

ARTICLEBODYGOESHERE
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Climate Change and the Unrestrained Elite Print
Monday, 10 December 2012 10:01

Monbiot writes: "Humankind's greatest crisis coincides with the rise of an ideology that makes it impossible to address."

File photo, site of the 2012 UN climate summit. (photo: Osama Faisal/AP)
File photo, site of the 2012 UN climate summit. (photo: Osama Faisal/AP)


Climate Change and the Unrestrained Elite

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com

10 December 12

 

Neoliberalism is not the root of the problem: it is the ideology used to justify a global grab of power, public assets and natural resources by an unrestrained elite.

umankind's greatest crisis coincides with the rise of an ideology that makes it impossible to address. By the late 1980s, when it became clear that manmade climate change endangered the living planet and its people, the world was in the grip of an extreme political doctrine, whose tenets forbid the kind of intervention required to arrest it.

Neoliberalism, also known as market fundamentalism or laissez-faire economics, purports to liberate the market from political interference. The state, it asserts, should do little but defend the realm, protect private property and remove barriers to business. In practice it looks nothing like this. What neoliberal theorists call shrinking the state looks more like shrinking democracy: reducing the means by which citizens can restrain the power of the elite. What they call "the market" looks more like the interests of corporations and the ultra-rich(1). Neoliberalism appears to be little more than a justification for plutocracy.

The doctrine was first applied in Chile in 1973, as former students of the University of Chicago, schooled in Milton Friedman's extreme prescriptions and funded by the CIA, worked alongside General Pinochet to impose a programme that would have been impossible in a democratic state. The result was an economic catastrophe, but one in which the rich - who took over Chile's privatised industries and unprotected natural resources - prospered exceedingly(2).

The creed was taken up by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It was forced upon the poor world by the IMF and the World Bank. By the time James Hansen presented the first detailed attempt to model future temperature rises to the US Senate in 1988( 3), the doctrine was being implanted everywhere.

As we saw in 2007 and 2008 (when neoliberal governments were forced to abandon their principles to bail out the banks), there could scarcely be a worse set of circumstances for addressing a crisis of any kind. Until it has no choice, the self-hating state will not intervene, however acute the crisis or grave the consequences. Neoliberalism protects the interests of the elite against all comers.

Preventing climate breakdown - the four, five or six degrees of warming now predicted for this century by green extremists like, er, the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and PriceWaterhouseCoopers( 4,5,6) - means confronting the oil, gas and coal industry. It means forcing that industry to abandon the four-fifths or more of fossil fuel reserves that we cannot afford to burn( 7). It means cancelling the prospecting and development of new reserves - what's the point if we can't use current stocks? - and reversing the expansion of any infrastructure (such as airports) that cannot be run without them.

But the self-hating state cannot act. Captured by interests that democracy is supposed to restrain, it can only sit on the road, ears pricked and whiskers twitching, as the truck thunders towards it. Confrontation is forbidden, action is a mortal sin. You may, perhaps, disperse some money for new energy; you may not legislate against the old.

So Barack Obama pursues what he calls an "all of the above" policy: promoting wind, solar, oil and gas( 8). Ed Davey, the British climate change secretary, launched an energy bill in the Commons last week whose purpose was to decarbonise the energy supply. In the same debate he promised that he would "maximise the potential" of oil and gas production in the North Sea and other offshore fields( 9).

Lord Stern described climate change as "the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen"( 10). The useless Earth Summit in June; the feeble measures now being debated in Doha; the energy bill( 11) and electricity demand reduction paper( 12) launched in Britain last week (better than they might have been but unmatched to the scale of the problem) expose the greatest and widest ranging failure of market fundamentalism: its incapacity to address our existential crisis.

The 1000-year legacy of current carbon emissions is long enough to smash anything resembling human civilisation into splinters( 13). Complex societies have sometimes survived the rise and fall of empires, plagues, wars and famines. They won't survive six degrees of climate change, sustained for a millennium(14). In return for 150 years of explosive consumption, much of which does nothing to advance human welfare, we are atomising the natural world and the human systems that depend on it.

The climate summit (or foothill) in Doha and the sound and fury of the British government's new measures probe the current limits of political action. Go further and you break your covenant with power, a covenant both disguised and validated by the neoliberal creed.

Neoliberalism is not the root of the problem: it is the ideology used, often retrospectively, to justify a global grab of power, public assets and natural resources by an unrestrained elite. But the problem cannot be addressed until the doctrine is challenged by effective political alternatives.

In other words, the struggle against climate change - and all the crises which now beset both human beings and the natural world - cannot be won without a wider political fight: a democratic mobilisation against plutocracy. I believe this should start with an effort to reform campaign finance: the means by which corporations and the very rich buy policies and politicians. Some of us will be launching a petition in the UK in the next few weeks, and I hope you will sign it.

But this is scarcely a beginning. We must start to articulate a new politics: one that sees intervention as legitimate, that contains a higher purpose than corporate emancipation disguised as market freedom, that puts the survival of people and the living world above the survival of a few favoured industries. In other words, a politics that belongs to us, not just the super-rich.

References:

1. See Colin Crouch, 2011. The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Polity Press, Cambridge.

2. Naomi Klein, 2007. The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. Allen Lane, London.

3. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

4. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012. Turn Down the Heat: why a 4C warmer World Must be Avoided. Report for the World Bank.

5. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/

6. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, November 2012. Too late for two degrees? Low carbon economy index 2012.

7. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/07/19/an-underground-national-park/

8. http://www.barackobama.com/energy-info/

9.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121129/debtext/121129-0002.htm

10. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0100/130100.pdf

11. Nicholas Stern, 2006. The Economics of Climate Change.

12. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/electricity-demand-reduction/7075-electricity-demand-reduction-consultation-on-optio.pdf

13. Susan Solomon, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, and Pierre Friedlingstein, 10th February 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS, vol. 106, no. 6, pp1704-1709. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106.

14. I'm speaking loosely here, as Solomon et al propose that not 100% but around 40% of the CO2 produced this century will remain in the atmosphere until at least the year 3000. On the other hand, unrestrained emissions and global warming will not stop of their own accord in 2100: temperatures could rise well beyond 6C in the following century: without sharp mitigation now, we're setting up 1,000 years of utter chaos.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Fiscal Cliff is a Snooze Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14640"><span class="small">Howard Kurtz, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Monday, 10 December 2012 09:58

Kurtz writes: "From the outside, it must appear that Washington is gripped by high drama as the country faces the daunting prospect of plunging over the fiscal cliff."

Speaker of the House John Boehner holds his weekly news conference in the Capitol Visitors Center, 04/18/12. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Speaker of the House John Boehner holds his weekly news conference in the Capitol Visitors Center, 04/18/12. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


The Fiscal Cliff is a Snooze

By Howard Kurtz, The Daily Beast

10 December 12

 

The debt-ceiling showdown, which threatened to send the country into default, kept us enthralled. But the fiscal cliff won’t plunge us into a recession on Jan. 1. Howard Kurtz on the mass tune-out.

rom the outside, it must appear that Washington is gripped by high drama as the country faces the daunting prospect of plunging over the fiscal cliff.

Um, not exactly.

We're as bored as the rest of the country. People aren't chatting about this at the coffee machine or arguing the angles over lunch. The cliff notes are just background noise, humming along at far lower volume than the roar that greeted Robert Griffin III's latest Redskins performance.

It's not just that the budget negotiations are far less sexy than, say, Kate Middleton having a baby or David Petraeus's Gmail account. This is Beltway territory; we thrive on dull-as-dishwater debates.

And it's not just that sophisticated news consumers have divined that the fiscal cliff isn't really a cliff, that the country won't plunge into a recession on Jan. 1 even if taxes go up and spending is slashed, as a compromise can always be hammered out in the following weeks.

The real reason for the mass tune-out is that the players haven't gotten serious. This is like the layup drills before an NBA game, and no one is keeping score. Both President Obama and John Boehner's Republicans are in the posturing phase, playing to their bases, and offering virtually nothing to the other side.

Here's what passes for news: John says the talks are going nowhere. John refuses to take a holiday photo with Barack. Wait, Barack and John are talking on the phone and excluding Mitch and Nancy! Hey, John and Barack huddled at the White House on Sunday-that must mean something, right?

So it's less of a negotiation than, as Bill Clinton says, a kabuki dance. And how enticing is that? I've talked to reporters who keep telling their editors they should not file a report that day because nothing was happening beyond a little more hot air.

For the moment, both sides are merely going through the motions. Obama proposes bigger tax hikes and says the Republicans should get specific about spending cuts. Boehner refuses to raise tax rates and proposes taking a huge chunk out of health-care entitlement programs. Neither side has given more than an inch or two. The Democrats seem perfectly willing to let the cliff deadline pass, as that would give them more leverage in coming back with a tax-cut plan once levies have gone up. Some Republicans, though, are making noises about at least extending tax cuts for the 98 percent.

Of course, as Christmas approaches, the two parties may decide it's in their interest to cut a deal, even if it's a short-term fix. That's how Washington works; nothing happens until the clock is winding down and Congress wants to go on vacation. The smart money says both sides will be pressured into some papered-over agreement because they'll both look awful if nothing is done. Well, maybe.

One reason this stuff is stupefying is that it's the same debate that we were subjected to throughout the presidential campaign, with its endless arguments about taxes. And aren't elections supposed to settle big questions?

In the last major budget showdown, in the summer of 2011, Washington was utterly caught up in the drama. Because the Republicans, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, were threatening to push the country into default, everyone here was constantly buzzing about the battle. This was an unprecedented act of confrontation, and the consequences were all too real. Every leak and maneuver was fraught with meaning, right up to the last-minute deal that averted the apocalypse-and laid the groundwork for the automatic cutbacks and tax hikes now set to begin after New Year's.

This is, of course, a faux crisis, artificially created, the handiwork of politicians who could easily undo it with a little bit of compromise. That's why it makes such a lousy spectator sport, even if you live in the home arena.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 Next > End >>

Page 3198 of 3432

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