RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The 'Citizens United' Tsunami Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7032"><span class="small">Michael Winship, Consortium News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 October 2012 13:00

Winship writes: "The tidal wave of campaign cash is now inundating U.S. voters with unchecked factual claims."

A detail of the West Facade of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
A detail of the West Facade of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


The 'Citizens United' Tsunami

By Michael Winship, Consortium News

03 October 12

 

hat ringing in your ears isn't church bells or a touch of tinnitus. It's the sound of campaign cash registers all over the country, chiming together like the world's biggest carillon, as money pours in as never before.

The total being spent for all the races in 2012 is projected at $6 billion this year; possibly rising to as much as $8 billion - which perhaps not coincidentally is the same amount the National Retail Federation estimates Americans will spend on Halloween.

Scary stuff, and almost as frightening is the realization that even though Election Day's still more than a month away, the post-analysis already has begun, much of it focused on whether those vast amounts of campaign money spent on TV have had an effect or merely annoyed the hell out of the viewing population of America, especially if you live in one of the swing states where the din has been unbearable.

Maybe, as some have argued, minds were made up long ago and all the spending has been a waste, reminiscent of the famous comment by British Air Chief Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris writing about the dropping of millions of propaganda leaflets over the Maginot Line during the first weeks of World War II: "My personal view is that the only thing achieved was largely to supply the continent's requirement of toilet paper for the five long years of war."

Nevertheless, the bulk of all those billions worth of campaign lucre is going to TV ads, and consultants and strategists are moving political spots around the airwaves like pieces in that tri-dimensional chess game Spock and Kirk used to play on "Star Trek."

Rick Klein at ABC News tells us that because early voting has started, "both candidates are [already] on the air with messages that are geared toward the very end," a change from traditional campaigning. The Washington Post reports that "President Obama has a little-noticed strategic advantage that gives him more control over the money he has raised.

"While Mitt Romney relies heavily on massive amounts of cash held by the Republican Party and interest groups, Obama has more funds in his own campaign coffers. That allows him to make decisions about where and how to spend the money and to take better advantage of discounted ad rates, which candidates receive under federal law.

"In one Ohio ad buy slated to run just before the election, for example, Obama is paying $125 for a spot that is costing a conservative super PAC $900."

So the maneuvering continues. Despite the pundits, we won't know the full impact for a while to come and chances are that all that money will have its deepest impact on down ballot races for the House and state legislatures, where massive cash infusions can overwhelm sparsely funded competition.

All of which is interesting and relevant; none of which you will see or hear being reported on the local TV stations that are hauling in the bounty that is political ad spending. Most of them are owned by giant media companies, and given their record of forthright transparency it may come as no surprise that the stations are resistant to allowing coverage on their local news about those profits and where the money's coming from.

Tim Karr at the media reform group Free Press has just written a report, "Left in the Dark," revealing that in five cities in swing states, local TV stations have received millions of dollars in political advertising from outside groups like the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity, Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA.

But with a single exception, there was no local reporting on the cash these groups are pouring into the election and no fact-checking of the claims made in their ads.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during the two weeks before the recall election against incumbent Governor Scott Walker - when outside money was swamping the state - there was nothing on local news about political ad spending. But there were 53 segments that mentioned Justin Bieber, the Canadian singer who has countless young fans but to the best of our knowledge has not yet established a super PAC.

In the swing state of Ohio, during the month of August, "Cleveland's four affiliate stations provided no coverage of the Koch brothers-funded group Americans for Prosperity, despite airing the group's anti-Obama attack ads more than 500 times. Americans for Prosperity has reportedly spent more than $1.5 million to place ads on Cleveland television stations."

And in Charlotte, North Carolina, site of the Democratic National Convention, "four affiliate stations provided no local reporting on the three top-spending political groups, the anti-Obama American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, and Restore Our Future. From Jan. 1-Aug. 31, 2012, these three groups cumulatively spent more than $4 million to place ads on Charlotte stations.

According to the Free Press report, "This profiteering may explain broadcasters' reluctance to investigate the relationship between political ad spending and local media. In exchange for this massive influx of cash, broadcasters must take their public interest obligations seriously.

"They must cover the money that's poisoning our politics, expose the groups and individuals funding political ads in their markets, and address the falsehoods presented in most of these spots."

Nonetheless, we have "a system gamed to a point of dysfunction by wealthy, undisclosed donors and media corporations that are all too content to just cash their checks."

To be fair, some stations are doing some form of due diligence - local stations in Denver, Orlando, Phoenix, Dallas and Minneapolis, for example, are attempting to fact-check political ads running on their air. But they're overwhelmed, and the media giants that have taken over most of our TV have been able to ignore their public obligations with impunity. Free Press and other media watchdog groups do their best, and your involvement is essential if they're to keep reporting what the most of the press - especially local TV stations - will not.

The recent FCC decision to insist that stations place online public records of political ad buys was an important step toward transparency. But even after Election Day has passed, pressure has to continue on Congress, the IRS, the FCC and the Federal Elections Commission - despite its current, weakened and feckless status. Dark money has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Questions Unlikely to Be Asked Tonight Print
Wednesday, 03 October 2012 09:10

Tonight's presidential debate is the first of three and Robert Reich has compiled some pointed questions ..."Governor Romney: You've said that you have used every legal method to reduce your tax liability..."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



Questions Unlikely to Be Asked Tonight

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 October 12

 

overnor Romney: You've said that you have used every legal method to reduce your tax liability. You've also said that as president you would close tax loopholes in order to help finance a major across-the-board tax cut. What specific tax loopholes have you used that you would close? A followup: Would you close the loophole that allows private-equity managers to treat their income as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax, even when they risk no capital of their own?

President Obama: You have spoken eloquently of the need to reduce the influence of big money in politics. What specific measures will you advance if you are reelected to accomplish this goal?

Governor Romney: You have promised to repeal the Dodd-Frank bill if you're elected. Yet our largest Wall Street banks are significantly larger than they were before the near meltdown of 2008. How would you prevent another bank from being too big to fail?

President Obama: The Dallas Federal Reserve Board, one of the most conservative in the nation, has called for a limit to the size of Wall Street banks. Sanford Weill, the creator of Citigroup - one of the largest Wall Street banks - says Wall Street banks should be broken up. If you are reelected, will you support capping the size of Wall Street banks?

Governor Romney: You have said you'd repeal the Affordable Care Act if you're elected. That would leave 30 million Americans without health insurance. You championed a small version of the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts. Does that mean you believe it's more efficient for each state to have its own system for insuring the uninsured?

President Obama: Last December, in a speech you gave in Osawatomie, Kansas, you noted that in the last few decades the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by 6 percent. If you're reelected president, what do you propose to do about this trend?

Governor Romney:  Your mathematics has been attacked by those who say it's impossible to provide the tax cut you propose; expand the military, as you want to do; preserve Medicare and Social Security, as you promise to do; and at the same time balance the federal budget, as you say you'll do. Can you take us through the math, please, with specific numbers?

President Obama: You have called for equal marriage rights for gay Americans. If you're reelected, will you support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Governor Romney: You support states' rights, and don't support wealth redistribution. Yet as you know, the citizens of most so-called "blue" states - notably California, New York, and Massachusetts - send more federal tax revenue to Washington than they receive back from Washington, while most of the citizens of "red" states send less tax revenue to Washington than their citizens receive back. Would you, as president, seek to end this subsidy of red states by blue states?

President Obama: In the 2008 campaign you and your opponent, Senator McCain, both supported some version of a "cap and trade" system for limiting emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. During the last four years, evidence has mounted that climate change may be doing irreversible damage to the planet. If you are reelected, will you push for a "cap and trade" system, or a carbon tax, or both?

Governor Romney: America has had some very wealthy men elected president. Your wealth is estimated to be more than a quarter of a billion dollars. The wealthy men elected president - a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt; Franklin D. Roosevelt; and John F. Kennedy - all fought for equal opportunity, reduced the power of large corporations and Wall Street, and gave average working Americans more economic security. Do you share these objectives, and, if you're elected president, what will you do to achieve them? Please be specific.

President Obama:  TARP authorized not only a bailout of Wall Street banks but help to distressed homeowners. You chose not to condition the bailout of Wall Street on the banks reducing the amount people owed on their mortgages. In hindsight, do you think that was a mistake?  A follow up question, if I may: It is estimated that one in five American families is still underwater - owing more on their home mortgages than their homes are worth.  So far your efforts to help them have fallen far short of the goals you set. If you are reelected, what specific measures will you initiate do more for these families?

Governor Romney:  You have campaigned as a "businessman" who has the managerial experience to turn the economy around. Yet some say you've run one of the worst campaigns in recent memory - filled with gaffes, misstatements, poor timing, Clint Eastwood, and much else. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, for example, calls your campaign a "calamity." Should Americans be concerned about your management abilities?

President Obama: You faced a particularly truculent Republican congress. But some say you didn't fight Republicans hard enough during your first term, that you often began negotiations with compromises, and you didn't use the full powers of your office to get more of what you wanted. Do you think there's any validity to this criticism and, if so, what will you do differently in your second term?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RomneyCare: Fend For Yourself Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 October 2012 09:06

Intro: "The largest and clearest point of distinction in the presidential race is universal access to health insurance. If President Obama wins reelection, his law to provide access to the uninsured will go forward. If Mitt Romney is elected, it will be gutted, and Medicaid — the bare-bones coverage plan for the most desperately poor and sick — will face enormous additional cuts."

They don't sit in their apartment and die! (photo: New York Magazine)
They don't sit in their apartment and die! (photo: New York Magazine)



RomneyCare: Fend For Yourself

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine

03 October 12

 

he largest and clearest point of distinction in the presidential race is universal access to health insurance. If President Obama wins reelection, his law to provide access to the uninsured will go forward. If Mitt Romney is elected, it will be gutted, and Medicaid - the bare-bones coverage plan for the most desperately poor and sick - will face enormous additional cuts.

Commonwealth Fund has released a report comparing the stark choice. Estimating conservatively, Romney's plan - to the extent that the report was able to piece it together - would increase the uninsured population to about 72 million, while Obama's would cut it to 26 million (his plan does not cover illegal immigrants.) Probably more telling is Romney's official campaign reaction:

"Under ObamaCare, Americans have seen their insurance premiums increase, small businesses are facing massive tax increases, and seniors will have reduced access to Medicare services," Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman, wrote in an email to POLITICO. "The American people did not want this law, our country cannot afford this law, and when Mitt Romney becomes president he will repeal it and replace it with common-sense, patient-centered reforms that strengthen our health care system."

Note that the statement is almost entirely an attack on Obamacare, with a brief clause at the end vaguely promising something good will take its place. But that something requires resources. Most people lacking insurance are either sick or have a sick family member or they're poor. If you want to cover them, you need to cough up some money. Obamacare undertook the massive political heavy lift of providing those resources, and that's what Romney attacks - he included higher taxes on "small businesses" (i.e., people making more than $250,000 a year) and "reduced access to Medicare services" (i.e., cuts in reimbursements to Medicare providers, as a trade-off for providing them with 30 million new paying customers.)

Both campaigns describe the election as a stark choice, and this is correct. It's a choice between universal health coverage for legal citizens and preserving the Bush tax cuts.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What to Watch for in the Presidential Debates Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=8706"><span class="small">George Lakoff, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 October 2012 15:25

Lakoff writes: "That is the central issue in this election. It is a moral issue. Who are we as Americans? Are we citizens who join together to form a great nation? Or are we isolated individuals, with no commitments to each other, at the mercy of corporations whose central goal is their short-term profit."

(illustration: TIME Magazine)
(illustration: TIME Magazine)


What to Watch for in the Presidential Debates

By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News

02 October 12

 

 

've been applying cognitive linguistics and neuroscience to politics in six books over the past two decades. The ideas in those books were on display in many of the speeches at the Democratic National Convention. Look for them in the debates. They include:

  • All politics is based on moral values, with strict conservatives and progressives having different moral values.

  • There are also morally complex voters - moderates, independents, swing voters - who are progressive on some issues and conservative on others. The activation of one in the brain turns of

  • All issues are conceptually "framed" - that is, they have a mental structure that fits one's moral system.

  • Facts matter, but only when they clearly fit one's morally-based frames. Facts and figures, when used, should create a moral point in a memorable way. And if the facts don't fit your frames, the frames stay (since they are in your brain) and the facts are ignored or ridiculed.

  • Political language is rarely neutral. Because all words are defined in conceptual frames, all political language is defined in terms of morally-based frames.

  • Effective political speech uses language based on one's own frames and avoids language based on the opponent's frames. The opponent's language, even if negated and argued against, activates his frames in the brains of the public.

  • If the moderator uses the other side's frames, shift to yours.

  • The best defense is a good offense: a narrative based on your frames. Always go on offense.

  • Tell why your views are patriotic.

  • Tell the truth.

  • Repeat. Repetition is necessary.

The presidential debates have other vital constraints as well. Here is the basic advice for candidates in the debates.

  • State your values as the basis of any policy discussion. That tells why you think the policy is right. Be positive.
  • Limit discussion of policy details. Policies - and the facts and figures behind them - should only be discussed when they exemplify your values. Avoid isolated facts and figures. Tell stories with clear morals.
  • Be clear and to the point. Connect empathetically with your audience.
  • Say straightforwardly what you believe. Be authentic. Tell the truth. Authenticity matters.
  • Values, clarity, connection with empathy, and authenticity lead to trust. Trust is absolutely vital. Can you be trusted to do what you say you'll do?
  • Present an authentic view of yourself that the public can identify with and be proud of.

Presidential debates are not won or lost on how good a policy wonk a candidate is. The above list is what counts.

In this election, there are a few basic ideas that are absolutely crucial:

  • Democracy is based on citizens caring about and taking responsibility for all citizens, as well as for themselves. The American government is the instrument that the people use to guarantee protection and empowerment for all.

  • We all, together, provide what is needed for a decent life. Individual accomplishment rests on what other Americans have provided. No one makes it without the rest of America. The private depends upon the public.

  • Building the economy requires investment - in public infrastructure, education, research, and much more.

  • Success is much more than money. It is your contribution to America as a whole - whether it is teaching, raising children, providing food, healing the sick, making useful products, guaranteeing our rights and out safety, or running businesses that make life better. America needs them all.

  • A number to remember: Most people may not be aware of it, but 96 percent of all Americans make use of what other citizens provide through our government: 96 percent of us have received tax deductions for mortgages, education, and dependent children, business subsidies, unemployment insurance, veterans' benefits, as well as all the other benefits that we all enjoy because of what we give and have given each other. This applies to almost all Americans, rich or not, Republican or Democrat. If your work contributed, or will contribute, to our country, you have earned, or will earn, whatever you have gotten. You are the 96 deserving percent. The other 4 percent are youngsters - to young to have benefited yet, but they will inevitably join the 96 percent soon.

  • These are largely progressive, not conservative ideas. They are about citizenship, not about going it alone, about a commitment to our country, not just a commitment to oneself.

  • That is the central issue in this election. It is a moral issue. Who are we as Americans? Are we citizens who join together to form a great nation? Or are we isolated individuals, with no commitments to each other, at the mercy of corporations whose central goal is their short-term profit.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Bane of Banned Books Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15952"><span class="small">Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 October 2012 13:15

Summary: "In honor of the 30th anniversary of the American Library Association's 'Banned Books Week,' Bill talks about the impact libraries have had on his youth, his dismay over book challenges in modern times, and why censorship is the biggest enemy of truth."

Portrait, Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)
Portrait, Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)


Bill Moyers | The Bane of Banned Books

By Bill Moyers, Moyers and Company

02 October 12

 

 

hen I was growing up in East Texas we didn't have any money for books. My reading room was the small local library run by an organization of business professional women. To this moment, I can remember checking out my first two volumes - one was Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days; the other was a primer on Greek and Roman mythology (don't ask me why.) Years later, when I walked into the much larger library at the state college as a freshman, I was practically overwhelmed. I looked down row after row of books and periodicals and thought: "Wow! All this for me?!” Some of the best hours of my life were spent in that library. I even considered majoring in library science, so that I could be near those books.

Which is one reason it pains me today that even in this modern day and age, some folks in communities across America are saying: "No. That Book ISN'T For You” and for reasons that have nothing to do with the community, the school, or the reader - and everything to do with prejudice.

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom reports 326 attempts last year to remove or restrict books from school curricula and libraries. Add those to thousands of formal complaints filed with a library or school in the last two decades - complaints about a book's content or appropriateness. Can you believe some people don't want other people to read Brave New World, The Color Purple, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, The Kite Runner, A Wrinkle in Time, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, A Light in the Attic, the Harry Potter series, and – ironic if not surprising – Fahrenheit 451.

Think of it: some of the most inspiring and mind-opening words ever written, threatened with removal because they offended a self-deputized vigilante over who wants to deny an entire community's curiosity and passion to learn.

Censorship is the enemy of truth - even more than a lie. A lie can be exposed; censorship can prevent us knowing the difference. This is one reason that on my public television broadcast, Moyers & Company, we call out the censors every time we can. And it's why we're so grateful to the ALA – as well as the librarians, writers, booksellers, publishers, and neighbors who stand with the Association in observing the 30th anniversary of Banned Books Week, taking place this year from September 30 – October 6.

Banned Books Week reminds us of the foundation of our freedom - the First Amendment - and the freedom of all of us – including our kids – to read and think and nurture the life of the mind.

You can learn more about banned books and banned books week at BillMoyers.com, ALA-DOT-ORG-SLASH-B-BOOKS, bannedbooksweek.org, or your local bookstore or library. Let's tell the censors - nothing doing.

I'm Bill Moyers. And you read me right.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 Next > End >>

Page 3247 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