RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto on GMO Labeling in California Print
Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:57

Simon writes: "The battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up."

Monsanto doesn't want you to know it has tinkered with your food. (photo: Food Watch)
Monsanto doesn't want you to know it has tinkered with your food. (photo: Food Watch)


Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto on GMO Labeling in California

By Michele Simon, Reader Supported News

23 August 12

 

he battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills.

Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called "Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal," in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).

Even for a corporation not exactly known for its honesty and transparency, this brief webpage is riddled with deception and outright falsehoods about the initiative and its proponents. Here are the 10 most blatant examples:

1) The law "would require a warning label on food products."

No warning label would be required. Rather, the words "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering" would be required on the back of the package -- similar to what is now required for ingredient or allergen labeling. For whole foods, like the sweet corn coming soon to a Walmart near you, a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words "genetically engineered." The aim is simply to offer consumers additional information about the contents of the foods they purchase.

2) "The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established."

Unfortunately, no long-term studies exist on either the safety or benefits of GMO ingredients, so Monsanto has no basis for making such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety studies of genetically engineered foods. Meanwhile, some independent studies raise questions about links to allergies and other potential health risks.

3) "The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods."

This statement, while true, is taken out of context and is misleading because the AMA also (for the first time) called for mandatory premarket safety studies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA's announcement, labeling and testing logically go together:

The AMA's stance on mandatory labeling isn't consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.

4) Food companies "have had the choice" to use GM ingredients.

Choice is a good thing; however, consumers have never had the choice. Prop 37 will give consumers a long-overdue choice about eating genetically engineered food.

5) "FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers."

Of course FDA refuses to require GMO labeling, thanks to Monsanto's arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food Democracy Now's Dave Murphy explained the FDA decision in May upon its 20-year anniversary, which came as a result of a broader deregulatory push by the first Bush administration:

Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations."

Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.

Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."

Call they did. It's typical for corporations to get their policy agenda approved through back-channel lobbying and revolving door appointments and then point to the magical policy outcome as evidence of scientific decision-making.

6) "Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails."

There is no basis in logic that consumers could be denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actually broadens the meaningful food choices available through greater transparency. Right now, people are eating in the dark.

7) "Interestingly, the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation's food supply."

In fact, quite a large number of food producers, farmers and others very much "engaged in the production of our nation's food supply" support the campaign. (See the growing list of endorsements.) Speaking of "special interest groups" wouldn't that label apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the industrial food producers who oppose Proposition 37?

8) "Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production."

"Modern food production" -- is that Monsanto's latest euphemism for scientifically altering the genetic code of the food supply? In truth, nothing is hidden "beneath" the Right to Know campaign, that's all it's about. But because Monsanto has no good argument for why consumers don't have the right to know how their food is produced, it has to resort to distracting deceptions.

9) "[Proponents] opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations."

Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorsements reveal that Monsanto and friends are actually out of step with leading health associations, such as:

  • American Public Health Association

  • American Medical Students Association

  • American Academy of Environmental Medicine

  • Physicians for Social Responsibility, California chapters

  • California Nurses Association

10) "The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers."

Again, logic defies this talking point, especially since all polling indicates a "majority of consumers" want GMO food to be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the proposition winning by a 3-to-1 margin. No wonder Monsanto has to resort to such nonsensical talking points.


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
 
More Evidence Wall Street Is Overpaid Print
Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:54

Taibbi writes: "Someday we'll get back to the time when the really smart guys from the best schools went to work for companies that built actual products, engineered more efficient cars, cured diseases, etc."

Wall Street cashes in on others ideas, like the creative people at Apple. (photo: Business Week)
Wall Street cashes in on others ideas, like the creative people at Apple. (photo: Business Week)


More Evidence Wall Street Is Overpaid

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

23 August 12

 

e'll be getting to this more next week when we do our piece on Mitt Romney and the private equity business, but one of the most frequently-overlooked problems of the financialization age is that a lot of our brilliant financial engineers are actually pretty damned average, when it comes to playing the market.

There's a great little piece at Zero Hedge about how hedge funds are having a terrible year (for the second straight year), with only 11% of all funds outperforming the Standard and Poor's 500, the basic stock index.

Here's Tyler's take on the panic in the hedge fund industry:

This is the worst yearly aggregate S&P 500 underperformance by the hedge fund industry in history, and also explains why the smooth sailing in the S&P500 belies the fact that nearly every single hedge fund manager (and at least 89% of all) is currently panicking like never before knowing very well there are only 4 more months left to beat the S&P or face terminal redemption requests. And with $1.2 trillion in gross equity positions, the day of redemption reckoning at the end of the year (and just after September 30 for that matter as well) could be the most painful yet. it also explains why, just like every other quarter in which career risk is at all time highs, HFs are dumping everything not nailed down and buying up AAPL, which as of June 30 was held by an all time high 230 hedge funds (more on that later).

Translating that into English, all those super-rich people who turned to hedge funds with their millions in the hopes that bunches of Whiz-Kids from Wharton and Harvard and Yale would find unseen and wildly creative investment ideas to fatten their fortunes - all those rich clients are actually finding out now that those same Whiz Kids are buying Apple just like the rest of us. Hey, it has to be a good stock, right? Everyone has an iPhone now.

Jesus. After all that craziness in the last decade or so, after MF and the London Whale and all that nuttiness, this is what it comes down to? These guys are buying Apple? Couldn't we have just started off doing that and saved ourselves all that trouble?

As is apparently also the case with Mitt Romney's PE business, which analysts have found often don't do much better than average if at all, the data shows more and more that we'd all be better off, and there'd be a lot less mischief, if the world's biggest and more powerful investment specialists just dumped money into humdrum baskets of stocks instead of racking their enormous brains to come up with exotic new trades.

Someday we'll get back to the time when the really smart guys from the best schools went to work for companies that built actual products, engineered more efficient cars, cured diseases, etc. Because it seems like our best minds kind of suck at investing.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sardinia: Militarization, Contamination and Cancer in Paradise Print
Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:49

Jaccard writes: "Sardinia is the victim of weapons manufacturers, polluting military activities and a political system that cares about power and money over the health of people and the environment."

Political mural against the militarization of Sardinia. (photo: Veterans for Peace)
Political mural against the militarization of Sardinia. (photo: Veterans for Peace)


Sardinia: Militarization, Contamination and Cancer in Paradise

By Helen Jaccard, War Is a Crime

23 August 12

 

eed to test some new weapons? Bomb paradise!

The sound of bombs, missiles, and other explosions; massive attacks from the sea onto the beach; an epidemic of cancers and birth defects; soil, air, food and water contaminated with heavy metals, jet fuel and other poisons; and national and company secrets that prevent the residents from learning the truth: Is this a modern war zone? No – Sardinia is the victim of weapons manufacturers, polluting military activities and a political system that cares about power and money over the health of people and the environment.

Sardinia is the second largest island in the Mediterranean Sea – a paradise with diverse wildlife and beautiful beaches. Alice Scanu, a Sardinian environmental engineer and activist said, “We are peaceful people, poor ones maybe, but very welcoming. That's how I'd like Sardinians to be remembered, not as people involved in wars and power games.” In the rural areas are shepherds and farmers who make magnificent wine, honey, and cheese.

Military Use of Sardinia

For over 50 years Sardinia has been used by militaries and arms manufacturers to:

  • test new bullets, bombs, missiles and drones

  • train soldiers and pilots

  • practice war scenarios

  • explode, burn and bury old weapons and dangerous chemicals

  • launch bombing sorties

Seventy percent of Italian military bases are located here, and Italian, NATO, and U.S. bases occupy about 1/3 of the area of the island’s land and sea. During military practice drills, the area closed to navigation and fishing increases to about 7200 square miles, almost 2 times the island surface.

Quirra, Teulada and Capo Frasca testing and firing ranges

The worst of the pollution, cancer, and birth deformities is in the firing ranges. In these huge areas in Southern Sardinia, militaries and weapons manufacturers:

  • test-fire artillery rockets, drones, and laser-guided precision bombs, including at least one depleted uranium weapon and missiles that release asbestos and white phosphorus

  • test the effects of explosions and fires on armor and pipelines

  • dispose of tons of old weapons and chemicals, by explosion or burial

  • perform air and naval “exercises”, holding mock attacks of the coast

Contamination:

  • large quantities of buried waste containing cadmium, lead, antimony, and napalm

  • high levels of lead on several beaches and in the water

  • explosions of waste and weapons from past wars affecting areas up to 2000 square meters each that no longer support vegetation – each explosion produces as much pollution as an incinerator of municipal solid waste during one year - exposing communities, shepherds, base personnel and animals to toxic dust containing thorium, lead, cerium and cadmium

  • Thorium, a radioactive and highly carcinogenic heavy metal used in military targeting systems has been found in Sardinian honey, milk, and other areas of the food chain.

  • Pieces of bombs, missiles, and bullets are lying on the ground and in the sea.

  • Unexploded ordnance lies in and around the restricted areas, including both land and sea.

Health effects:

  • Birth Defects: Between 1988 and 2002 fourteen children were born with severe malformations in Escalaplano, a small village of 2400 people bordering the Quirra base.

  • Malformed animals: two-headed lambs, calves with deformed legs, a pig with one huge grotesque eye – problems not normally seen here. A tissue sample from a malformed lamb was found to contain depleted uranium.

  • Cancer: In a village with 150 inhabitants, 12 people died from leukemia in 2002, with 63 in the past decade. In the previous decade (1990 – 2000), there had been no cases of leukemia or lymphoma among this same population. 65% of workers on seven of twelve farms located near the Quirra base are suffering from serious cancer. Rates of lymphoma, thyroid cancerand autoimmune diseases are also unexpectedly high.

John Madeddu worked in the Capo Frasca base from 1968 to 1987. He has diffuse large cell lymphoma. He remembers an area where a large number of bullets accumulated in a clearing. When it rained it created a marsh and the water seeped into the ground. The artesian wells provide water for both the base and the nearby farms. This kind of contamination has continued to build over the years with no clean-up effort undertaken. Animal deformities are common near the bases. Cattle still graze here and even if directly hit and killed by weapons containing heavy metals these animals are being butchered and eaten.

Francesco Piras died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 27 in 2007 after serving for 10 months at Capo Teulada. At the hospital, doctors asked him if he had been in contact with radioactive materials. Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Experimental Physicist at the University of Bologna, took biopsies of Francesco’s tissues and discovered high quantities of nanoparticles of industrial heavy metals.

A shepherd analyzed the situation with clear, shocking realism: "I have leukemia, I have only a few months or years of life, I accepted it. Nobody cares about us, and we just do not count for anything. They are powerful; it is better for them if there are fewer of us.”

The sheep are still grazing on contaminated land and the local people sell sheep cheese and grapes for a living.

Investigation and Prosecution:

On May 12, 2011, State Prosecutor Domenico Fiordalisi opened a court case to stop all military use of the Quirra base. Hundreds of shepherds and farmers demonstrated against the case because they might lose use of their land. They do not want a handout for unemployment; they just want their land to be uncontaminated and available.

The nuclear physicist Evandro Lodi Rizzini of Brescia University and CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) found elevated levels of radioactive thorium 232 and cerium (proving that the thorium was man-made) in the tissues of 15 of 18 bodies of Quirra-area shepherds who died of cancer between 1995 and 2000.

On March 24, 2012 Fiordalisi indicted twenty people on charges of "willful omission of precautions against injury and aggravated disasters or because they falsely certified the absence of pollution with the aim to "hide the environmental disaster.” The documents from Fiordalisi’s investigation have now been turned over to a tribunal for prosecution.

Decimomannu, the largest NATO air base contaminating the water supply

Decimomannu in Southwest Sardinia has the largest NATO air base in the world, used since 1954 as collaboration between Italy, Germany, Canada, the United States and NATO. From here they support transport aircraft of the Military Airlift Command from the United States to the Middle East and Africa. A total of 4 F-18s, along with a single Boeing 707 refueling aircraft was deployed to Decimomannu Air Base on the island of Sardinia for operations over Libya.

The military base of Decimomannu has been contaminating the environment with jet fuel and other poisons. Jet fuel contains xylene, benzene and lead, highly dangerous and carcinogenic substances. Mayor Louis Porceddu in February 2011 prohibited the use of the local wells. The authorities deny responsibility and expertise. An alleged reclamation has already cost 900,000 Euros, although no problem has been solved. Monica Pisano of the Decimomannu Civic Committee “Su Sentidu” said, “It is absolutely ineffective, since it is useless to reclaim the territory if the spill continues!”

La Maddalena / Santo Stefano islands

La Maddalena is an archipelago located 2 km Northeast of Sardinia. The population of 17,000 swells to 75,000 during the summer, when the tourists come to enjoy the campgrounds, beautiful beaches and lovely hiking trails.

From 1972 to 2008 a U.S. / NATO base on Santo Stefano Island served as the home port for nuclear submarines. In 2003 the nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Hartford struck a rock and damaged its rudders, sonar and electronics. However, residents suspect that even greater damage was done.

Massimo Zucchetti, Professor at the Department of Energy at the Torino Polytechnic and his team analyzed algae in the archipelago. The presence of radioactive alpha particles and plutonium traces were found, sometimes in high concentrations. This contamination is due to either a continuous loss of pollutant from the submarine base, or to environmental releases that took place during the USS Hartford accident.On January 20, 2004, the “schwäbische Zeitung”newspaper reported that there was an alarming high amount of radioactivity in the waternear La Maddalena Island.

Cause of Cancers

Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Experimental Physicist at the University of Bologna, found nano-particles of iron, lead, tungsten, and copper in the tissues of citizens and sheep. She said, “Rain leads to the contamination of the soil. Through air pollution, other areas that are not involved in the testing are contaminated as well… The sea is polluted. Local governments do not warn people when there are testing activities; they do testing even at night.”

Fernando Codenesu, Professor at the Department of Energy at the Torino Polytechnic, explained that Sardinia has rocks that are very fragile and contain heavy metals. An explosion breaks the rocks into micro and nano-particles containing these heavy metals. These in turn are blown in the wind, contaminate the groundwater; people and animals breathe them into their bodies.

Health Effects of Depleted Uranium and Thorium

What are effects of depleted uranium and thorium - elements that emit alpha particles on the body?

Dr. Rizzini said, “One micro-gram, that is, one millionth of a gram is sufficient to kill a person. It causes a rise in atomic disintegrations; with a production of 2000 alpha rays a day, nuclear radiation is most damaging.”

The organizations International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons and Mother Earth have good information about depleted uranium.

Demands of the people

  • Transparency and truth – reveal what chemicals and metals have been used.

  • Close all of the bases and radar facilities – completely de-militarize the island.

  • Clean and decontaminate the bases and land, aquifers and sea around them.

  • Provide health care to all people affected by military activity on the island

  • Provide financial assistance and clean land and sea to farmers and fishers

Political Action

Cagliari – Monthly Rally with Cancer Victims and their Families

There is a monthly rally against the bases on the 15th of each month in Cagliari. It is organized by victims of cancer and their families and those opposed to military use of Sardinia.

Committee of Parents of Fallen Soldiers in Times of Peace

Parents of deceased children (who had done their military service in Sardinia and in the Balkans) founded the organization “Comitato Genitori Vittime uranio impoverito” (Committee of Parents of Fallen soldiers in times of peace). Giancarlo Piras (father of Francesco) says, “Here in Sardinia, we are confronted with war victims but in a peaceful area. We like to call this area the zone for preparing new wars”. He points out that existing law is that the government needs to know what kind of weapons/materials have been tested in the bases. The reality is that none of the armies give information about the tests and hide under the umbrella of ‘military secrecy’.

Protests Prevent New Radar Installations

There are about 15 radar stations on the island, on the top of the mountains surrounding the bases. Many fear that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by them is dangerous and want their use stopped.

People are now demonstrating against construction of several more radar sites. Local officials and the Italian Party Partito Democratico have now spoken against some of the proposed radar sites as well. As a result, plans for four of them have been abandoned.

Fishermen Bring Naval Exercises to a Halt

Since the 1990s fishermen have been pushed out of their profession by NATO naval exercises and have become activists for their right to use the sea. There were acts of civil disobedience at the port, the base entrances, and at sea. Stubbornly, daily, when the wind allowed it, the fishermen challenged the restrictions and the bombs, directing up to 42 boats into the heart of the war game area and threw their fishing nets in a prohibited sea saturated by war ships. Fortunately, it only takes one civilian boat to stop a naval exercise.

Their demands are simple: the right to safe work, to have the stolen sea back, and to have a clean sea and environment.

2005 was the last year of protest. The fishermen are now paid to stay out of the water and many have abandoned their profession.

Italian Democratic Party (Partito Democratico) calls for closure or conversion of bases

In an encouraging new development in March 2012, Senator Gian Piero Scanu called for closing the bases in Capo Frasca and Capo Teulada, and for changing the Quirra base back to its previous designation as a technical-scientific research center. This letter was signed by over 100 Senators of many political parties.

Media coverage

The Sardinian newspapers have published articles about the deformities and high rates of cancer, so everyone on the island is aware of this problem. L’Union Sardo has been particularly good about publishing articles regarding the cancer, birth defects, contamination, and military use of Sardinia.

What can you do?

  • Spread the word about Sardinia. More information is available here where the original 7500-word research document is stored. Also here as a PDF.

  • Contact your congressional representatives and demand the closure of the Sardinia NATO bases.

  • Carry signs or flyers at demonstrations demanding that NATO stop bombing Sardinia.

  • Contact Helen Jaccard at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to discuss ideas.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How Elizabeth Warren Can Win Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:33

Pierce writes: "Anyone who tells you that Warren is 'the same candidate' as Martha Coakley, whom Brown defeated in the 2010 special election, has issues with women candidates because Warren has no more in common with the buttoned-up Coakley than she does with Rajon Rondo."

Elizabeth Warren needs to nationalize her campaign to save Democratic control of the US Senate. (photo: Getty Images)
Elizabeth Warren needs to nationalize her campaign to save Democratic control of the US Senate. (photo: Getty Images)


How Elizabeth Warren Can Win

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

23 August 2012

 

here's been a bit of a bustling in the hedgerow over Public Policy Polling's new numbers showing Elizabeth Warren five points up the track behind incumbent Scott Brown here in the Commonwealth (God save it!). Democrats around the country are expressing some level of surprise/shock/anaphylaxis at this, despite the fact that it's still August, and that neither one of them is above 50 percent in the poll, and that there's as much good news as bad for Warren in the poll's internal numbers. She simply has to do better among Independents - although, in Massachusetts, that generally means Republicans who didn't vote in the primaries for the last few cycles - but there's also this entirely weird stat that says 53 percent of the people polled want the Democrats in control of the Senate, which is not really a plausible scenario if Warren doesn't win. We'll get to what that number could mean in a moment.

The major problem all along has been that Senator McDreamy really is a nice guy. He doesn't just come across as one. He is. He's thin-skinned as hell, as they all are, and he occasionally acts as though his fluke election was a world-historical event on a par with the elevation of Charlemagne, but his favorability is through the roof and it's going to stay there. We have been deluged here with whadda-nice-guy ads featuring superannuated putative Democratic mayors Ray Flynn of Boston and Connie Lukes of Worcester, neither of whom wields the political influence of the average deer tick, but both of whom are nice old folks who think the young man really is the cat's pajamas. As such, they're very effective ads. By comparison, Warren's commercials are perfectly adequate, but they do very little to capture the charisma that become obvious to anyone who spends 15 minutes with her in the same room.

Other curious local factors are in play as well. For example, we've got a history of voting for R's statewide, as the country is presently learning to its horror. Also, in the history of the state, we have elected a grand total of three women to statewide office, all of them to secondary positions, and none of them to the Senate. (By comparison, Arizona has had three consecutive female governors.) There remains in the old-school Massachusetts Democrats a fundamental abhorrence for candidates with ovaries. Read deeply into Alec MacGillis's piece in The New Republic from a couple of weeks ago, the one in which he quotes a whole raft of guys who were passing over the hill when I was working for the Phoenix in the late '70's. For my money, MacGillis has been as good as TNR gets during this election, and his general perception of the state of the race here is close to dead-on but, Jesus Christ, he's walking with the Undead here. Larry DiCara? Tom Birmingham? Oh, and young Jimmy Shannon! God love ya, lad, but your career is as dead as Curley, boyo. And Chris Lydon is a career foof who told Warren, as recounted by MacGillis, "You have to be an awfully nice girl to run for office and not be too strident or too depressing and not condescending about people's problems. How are you working that?" McGillis says that this condescending warning about the dangers of condescension "caught Warren off-guard," the evidence for which may well be that she didn't pick up her chair and park the fathead who delivered it into the third row. Here's the tell: Anyone who tells you that Warren is "the same candidate" as Martha Coakley, whom Brown defeated in the 2010 special election, has issues with women candidates because Warren has no more in common with the buttoned-up Coakley than she does with Rajon Rondo.

The other real problem is the genuinely stupid deal that the Warren campaign cut with the Brown campaign in which both sides agreed to keep outside money out of this campaign, thereby essentially wishing away Citizens United like children who think, if they can't see the bear, the bear can't see them. The only possible way for Warren to be sure to win is to nationalize the campaign. Here's where that odd polling data about who should control the Senate comes in. Warren's got to be able to point out that, nice guy or not, McDreamy is of the party of the crazy people, and that a Republican-controlled Senate is one step closer to the abyss, and she needs to make that charge stick. Just today, the Boston Herald, McDreamy's local fanzine, went into full high-sterics about the possibility that Todd Akin's little foray into reproductive biology might damage Brown's chances here, even though Brown himself stepped up quickly and strongly and told Akin to step out.

Later, of course, Brown declared himself a "pro-choice Republican."

"Apparently she's a little confused as to who she is running against," Brown said of Democrat Elizabeth Warren. "She is running against Scott Brown. I am a pro-choice, independent Republican who has a history of being an independent thinker."

Of course, he's nothing of the sort. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Period. You are not pro-choice if you believe in banning the medical fiction that is "partial-birth" abortion, a political term of art ginned up by the hardline anti-choice movement to great success, or if you support the Hyde Amendment. That may make you a "pro-choice Republican," but that sort of the whole point, isn't it? At least he's saying he's some sort of a Republican these days. Generally, he doesn't bring that up. It should be brought up for him. He should be made to support or stand against every bit of lunacy that's coming out of the national party with which he's aligned and then he should be asked what's left to support. You can make running from his party and being a part of it two sides of the same political attack but, to make this kind of argument forcefully enough, and given the nature of the bad bargain to which she agreed, Warren needs the dead serious involvement of the national Democratic Party. They need to treat this race like Jon Tester in Montana and, yes, McCaskill in Missouri, and they need not to listen to a bunch of superannuated coatholders who are still waiting for the call to join the cabinet of President Dukakis. Tell all your Democratic friends that they're idiots if they think otherwise.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Karl Rove's Covert Domination of GOP Print
Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:04

Amy Goodman: "'Karl Rove has become the ultimate party boss.' Craig Unger, lays out his rise to power, his fall, and then his rise again."

Craig Unger's new book, 'Boss Rove,' highlights the reemergence of Karl Rove to power within the Republican Party. (photo: AP)
Craig Unger's new book, 'Boss Rove,' highlights the reemergence of Karl Rove to power within the Republican Party. (photo: AP)


Karl Rove's Covert Domination of GOP

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!

23 August 2012

 

n a new book, author Craig Unger examines the return of Karl Rove, the man who masterminded the rise of George W. Bush from governor of Texas to a two-term presidency, who advised Bush during two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who was at the center of two of the biggest scandals of the Bush administration: the Valerie Plame Wilson affair and the U.S. attorneys scandal. While Rove was almost indicted for the Plame affair, he has reinvented himself to become the most powerful political operative in America. Heading up the American Crossroads super PAC and the affiliated nonprofit, Crossroads GPS, Rove has built up a war chest that has given Mitt Romney a significant cash advantage in the fundraising race with President Obama. In "Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power," Unger writes that Rove's ambitions are not simply about winning elections, but represent "a far more grandiose vision - the forging of a historic re-alignment of America's political landscape, the transformation of America into effectively a one-party state." [includes rush transcript]



AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is Craig Unger, who has written Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. In it, he writes, "Undeniably, he's back," talking about Karl Rove. "He has re-invented himself. He is not merely Bush's Brain; he's the man who swallowed the Republican Party. As the maestro orchestrating the various super-pacs, he has inspired the wealthiest people on the right to pony up what could amount to $1 billion and has created an unelected position for himself of real enduring power with no term limits. Karl Rove has become the ultimate party boss." Craig Unger, lay out his rise to power, his fall, and then his rise again.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I think a lot of people saw him as a creature of the Bush family, and then that was it, and then it was all over in 2008 when Bush left the White House. And that was not the case at all.

And it's worth going back to how he got power back in the 1980s. And there was not much of a Texas Republican Party in those years, partly because Texas had powerful conservative Democrats, like John Connolly and Lloyd Bentsen, so the big business people who normally would give to the Republicans said, "Well, why bother? We're getting what we want from Connolly and Bentsen." Rove got around that by creating political action committees, and he took an issue that seemed obscure at the time, known as tort reform. It's giving the rights of people to collect in product liability cases. And he went to Philip Morris, who put him on his payroll, and to big pharmaceutical companies and so forth and said, "Look, you guys risk billions and billions of dollars in product liability. Give a few million to my candidates, and we will take over the Texas Supreme Court, we'll take over the Texas legislature, we'll put George W. Bush in as governor, and we will save you billions of dollars." And he did precisely that. And he ended up with-he flipped the-the Texas Supreme Court was completely dominated by Democrats. It became completely Republican. And he ended up with some very loyal campaign contributors, like Bob Perry-who is no relation to Rick Perry-Harold Simmons and so forth. These are Texas billionaires. And they've stuck with him for about 30 years. So, that's really the first phase.

The key moment then came in 2010, and this was the Republican Party was in crisis, as it appears to be again today. And if you-Michael Steele was chairman of the RNC. And you may remember, in early 2010, there was an episode where Republican donors were being entertained at a lesbian bondage-themed strip club. And-

AMY GOODMAN: In California.

CRAIG UNGER: In California, exactly. And partly as a result of that and other things, big money people just refused to give anything to the Republican Party.

AMY GOODMAN: And this was a time when the Republican-when the RNC was broke.

CRAIG UNGER: Absolutely, absolutely. It was also just after a landmark Supreme Court decision, Citizens United. And this opened the gateways for people to give unlimited contributions to super PACs. And so, Karl Rove had a luncheon at his home in Washington, D.C., on Weaver Terrace. He had about two dozen people there. These were the bigwigs in-it was co-sponsored by Ed Gillespie, who had been former chairman of the RNC. And he came away with millions and millions of dollars, and this represented the birth of the super PAC of American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and so forth.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, before we go forward, I wanted to go back a little further to show-to show Karl Rove's power during the Bush years, both in 2000 and then-you devote an entire chapter to what happened in Ohio in 2004. And a lot of people might not remember this or might not have even known to begin with.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, Rove did a lot of things that were sort of under the radar and that I think have enduring consequences, and they represent real threats to democracy. One of them was the U.S. attorneys scandal, and I think it was widely misunderstood. And, you know, this was-became best known when eight United States attorneys were fired for sort of not toeing the Republican Party line. Now, in fact, to me, the real question is not what happened in the unjust firing of those eight people; it's what about the other U.S. attorneys who were appointed by the Bush administration and were toeing the party line? What were they doing? And what we see happening is that they were prosecuting Democrats, essentially. This is best-it came through best in-I think the most egregious case of this is in Alabama, and it's the case of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, who will probably-in early September, will face going to jail for eight years. And I think this is one of the most egregious, unjust acts we've seen from the Justice Department.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was found guilty in a 2006 corruption case. Critics say Siegelman was the target of a political witch hunt, in part orchestrated by former Bush administration deputy Karl Rove. Democracy Now! spoke to Siegelman about his case in early 2009. We asked if he believed Karl Rove was involved in his prosecution. Let's just go to his response.

DON SIEGELMAN: I was brought to trial one month before the Democratic primary by Karl Rove's best friend's wife, who was the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, on charges that the New York Times said have never been a crime in America. Grant Woods, who's the Republican-was the Republican attorney general from Arizona, said that they couldn't beat Siegelman fair and square, so they targeted him with this prosecution. We have sworn testimony from a Republican political operative, Jill Simpson, who said that she was on a conversation with my prosecutor's husband, who said that he had talked to Karl Rove, and Rove had spoken to the Department of Justice, and everything was wired in for them to-for the Department of Justice to pursue me.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That's former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman speaking to Democracy Now! in 2006. Siegelman is now appealing his prison sentence three weeks before he's scheduled to report to federal prison to complete a more than six-year sentence.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I think Siegelman is absolutely right. I mean, it's not the prettiest part of the American political system, but it's sort of standard operating procedure that sometimes campaign contributors get political appointments. And in Siegelman's case, Siegelman personally got zero dollars. He appointed a contributor to a non-paying state-appointed position. And if he's to go to jail-George W. Bush gave appointments to over a hundred campaign contributors and was not prosecuted on any one of those. And it really has been standard operating procedure. Hundreds of ambassadors throughout the years, in one administration after another, have been campaign contributors.

And what you see that happened-and this is really under Rove's aegis-is selective prosecution. And I think there's nothing more damaging democracy than when laws are applied only to one group. And as I began to research this, I saw that, you know, you may notice that a mayor of Alabama was indicted or investigated, a mayor of Honolulu was investigated just before an election, mayor of Miami, mayor of San Francisco. And all in all, I found mayors of 12 major cities. There's Cleveland; Detroit; Portland, Oregon; New Orleans; Chicago; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Memphis and Dallas. What do they all have in common? They are Democrats. They are governors and lieutenant governors from five states-Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey and Maryland-and on and on, over 200 politicians, and 85 percent of them are Democrats. And I think there's no data suggests that the Democratic Party is seven times more corrupt than the Republicans.

AMY GOODMAN: But how do you tie this all to Karl Rove?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, there is the testimony, as Siegelman said, of a former Republican operative named Jill Simpson, and she testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Now-excuse me-Rove in GQ magazine said she didn't dare mention his name. His name is in it zero times, zero times. I went back to the testimony. In fact, his name is in it at least 50 times, and it's-and she explicitly makes it clear that he was involved. What happened with the Siegelman prosecution is a colleague of Rove's named Bill Canary was sort of the Karl Rove out of Alabama. He was handling the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Republican senatorial candidates and so forth. And who was appointed U.S. attorney in Alabama but Canary's wife. So he was in this wonderful position. When he was running a campaign, his wife would simply indict the Democratic opponent. And that's exactly what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: So now let's go back to Ohio, in fact, Ohio and SMARTech. This is the one chance you ever had to question Karl Rove about that.

CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And I met Karl Rove in Alabama, and I asked him. And he said, "SMARTech? What's that? I've never heard of it."

Well, SMARTech is a high-tech company in Chattanooga. And what you see with Rove's methodology is he manages to have things happen in his benefit, and there are no fingerprints. But I traced the ownership of SMARTech and its precursors, and the original company was funded by two-its precursor, rather, was funded by two Republicans named Bill DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Mercer Reynolds was finance chairman of the Republican Party. In '04, he raised about a quarter of a billion dollars for the Bush-Cheney campaign. And in the '80s, they had bailed out George W. Bush in his oil ventures, DeWitt and Reynolds had. So they were very, very close to him.

And this company started off as a very legitimate high-tech company in Chattanooga during the dot-com boom. It later reformed under a different name and different ownership, but by then it had become very much a political operation. So, this was a highly, highly partisan Republican high-tech company. It hosted-its biggest clients included the Bush-Cheney campaign, it included Jeb Bush, it included the Republican National Committee. It streamed live the convention, the Republican convention.

And somehow or other, in 2004, in the state of Ohio, which was the single most crucial state in the electoral college, when it came to the actual voting, the secretary of state of Ohio, a guy named Ken Blackwell-and the secretary of state's job is to-part of it is to ensure fair, nonpartisan elections-happened to be co-chair of the Bush campaign. Now, there's no conflict there. And he gave a contract to host the fail oversight for the Republican-rather, for the votes in 2004, to none other than SMARTech. And this is where things went a little crazy.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But how was that allowed to happen even? I mean-

CRAIG UNGER: Well, I mean, I think it is a huge conflict of interest on the face of it for the secretary of state of a party to be affiliated with one campaign or the other. And we saw it, of course, in Florida in 2000 with Katherine Harris.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, 2004, election night, tell us the story.

CRAIG UNGER: Right, Well, about at 11:14 p.m., things started to happen, exactly 11:14 p.m. And as the votes came in, it was clear it was going to be an all-nighter in terms of the results. And around 11:00, Florida was called for Bush, and that meant the entire fate of the election hinged on Ohio. So, suddenly-excuse me-the servers for the secretary of state's computers were flooded with queries.

AMY GOODMAN: Ohio secretary of state.

CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And they needed to lock into the fail oversight in Chattanooga with SMARTech. And this is where the results went a little crazy. And suddenly, an enormous number of irregular returns came in, and the votes shifted. The exit polls had shown Kerry winning Ohio, and therefore the election. And it looked like he had won the presidential election. I remember that day vividly because I was getting reports from the exit polls, and I went around telling people it looked like Kerry had won. But there was a 6.7 percent difference between the exit polls and the actual results. And as a result, the election ended up going to Bush. And that was the entire story.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In writing about what happened in Ohio as well as in Alabama, one of the things that you say about Rove is that a case can be made that for the last three decades he's been putting a systematic attempt to game the American electoral system by whatever means necessary. What kind of vision does Karl Rove have for the Republican Party and for American politics?

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I don't think he's an ideologue. I think he's about winning. And he's often been compared to a guy named Mark Hanna, who more than a century ago was the political mind behind President William McKinley. He was a senator from Ohio, but he was also a political operative who put McKinley in the White House and forged a realignment. There's always been this talk of a permanent Republican majority that Rove is trying to forge, and he sees it, the nation, as being entirely Republican. And, in fact, I think that's Rove's line, and I don't buy it.

He faces, and the Republican Party faces, an extraordinary challenge in the-with the Hispanic boom. There are now 50 million Hispanics in the United States. In 2020, at the current rate of growth, there will be 70 million. If they start to vote, they tend to lean heavily Democratic, and you will start to see states like Texas and Arizona flip from red to blue. And Rove is trying to stop that. And one campaign he's supported is what is known as a campaign fighting voter fraud. And as I found out, I think the fraud about-the Brennan Center at the NYU School of Law says the fraud about-voter fraud is itself a fraud. And there have only been 10 documented cases of people voting under false names in the first decade of this century. So, why-but in response to that minuscule number, there are campaigns in more than 30 states to have voter-require voter IDs and so forth. This will inhibit voting from new immigrants, from minorities, from the elderly and so forth, who, again, lean heavily Democratic.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to break, I want to go one more time back to Ohio, because you really focus on these issues in the book. Michael Connell, who he was, and what his death meant?

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, he was known as Rove's sort of cyber-guru, and he had a company called New Media that was-hosted all its work at SMARTech, as I-the company I mentioned earlier. And what you see there is, again, a highly partisan Republican operative who gets involved in what are supposed to be nonpartisan activities. And there were a number of things going on there. What first struck my attention is he got contracts to host the House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, a lot of government committees, which included emails and so forth of Democrats. And I thought back to Watergate, of course, when the Republicans broke in to get one file from the Watergate office. Here, they presumably had access to thousands and thousands of files for many, many years. Whether they used that or not, I don't really know.

They were also-you know, but Connell-one of the things that's very interesting is how evidence disappeared again and again and again in this case. And what you saw is that in all of these scandals-in the U.S. attorneys scandal and the Valerie Plame scandal-Rove's emails were subpoenaed, and they were hosted at SMARTech. And, oops, millions of emails mysteriously disappeared. Now, these were supposedly under the-protected by the Presidential Preservation Records Act [Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act], and the destruction of government documents is a very, very serious crime. But every attempt to investigate turns up naught. And Mike Connell became increasingly an important witness in this case. He was subpoenaed once. There was a case investigating the 2004 election. He was supposed to testify again. And finally, before he could testify again, he died in a plane crash, in a solo private plane.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to ask you about Stephen Spoonamore, a former John McCain supporter and a highly successful expert of the detection of computer fraud. In 2008, he named Mike Connell and his company, GovTech Solutions, as having played a crucial role in the electronic subversion of the vote in Ohio in 2004. I want to ask you more about Spoonamore, but first I want to turn to a 2008 interview Democracy Now! did with the media scholar Mark Crispin Miller shortly after Mike Connell died in a plane crash. In this clip, Miller says Connell asked Spoonamore how one would go about destroying White House emails.

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Stephen Spoonamore is a conservative Republican, a former McCain supporter and a very prominent expert at the detection of computer fraud. He's the star witness in the Ohio lawsuit, right, in which Connell was involved. He has done extensive work of this kind, involving computer security, and had therefore worked with Connell, knew Connell personally and knew a lot of the people who were involved in the sort of cyber-security end of the Bush operation.
Despite his conservatism-or I suppose some would say because of it-he's a man of principle-I mean, believes in the Constitution. He believes elections should be honest. He's the one who came forward and named Connell.
And I have seen his notes of a conversation in which Connell asked Spoonamore how one would go about destroying White House emails. To this, Spoonamore said, "This conversation is over. You're asking me to do something illegal." But clearly, clearly-this is the important point-Mike Connell was up past his eyeballs in the most sensitive and explosive aspects of this crime family that, you know, has been masquerading as a political party.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Mark Crispin Miller speaking to Democracy Now! Do you think Ohio 2004 was stolen, and do you think it's possible that something like that could happen in the 2012 election?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, there was no question there was massive fraud. If you want to actually count the votes, unfortunately it's impossible because so much evidence was destroyed. And then that's why Mike Connell was such an important witness, and his death meant that-you know, I quoted-I talked to Mike Connell's sister, who said either-there are only two possibilities, really, that Connell was murdered-and I don't see any evidence of that-or that he was in an accident, in which case Karl Rove is the luckiest man alive.

Could this happen again? I think-you know, I think electronic voting is very, very dangerous, and it's very easy to manipulate. But I also found evidence in Ohio of extraordinary kinds of fraud that could happen with punchcard ballots, as well, through very elaborate and byzantine means of-known as cross-voting. And I think a lot of people don't realize, when you go into a voting booth and you see another voting booth nearby, if you voted the same way in the adjoining booth, in the wrong booth, or if your punchcard is counted by the different computer, it would register to a different vote. And we saw this happened-

AMY GOODMAN: I don't understand.

CRAIG UNGER: Well, in Ohio, they have what is known as a rotation of ballot. That is, they decide that-whoever's at the top of the ballot has roughly a 2 percent advantage over the candidate below him. So, to compensate for that, they actually rotate the ballot sequence from one precinct to another, which makes a certain amount of sense. But the voter doesn't know that. Now, if your-

AMY GOODMAN: So you might have Romney on top in one ballot, Obama on top on another ballot.

CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. So precinct one has Romney on top. If it's counted by precinct two, however, the vote goes to the wrong person. And we saw a lot of that in Ohio. And the giveaway was in an African-American precinct, where there were third-party people on the ballot there, including a white supremacist-someone linked to a white supremacist party. And suddenly in this African-American precinct, this-and African Americans tend to be very, very disciplined Democratic voters. They've been 95 percent Democratic in the past. And suddenly, this man who is linked to a white supremacist got 40 percent of the vote. And you could see exactly what had happened.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Craig Unger. His new book is Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. When we come back from break, how Karl Rove barely escaped indictment and rose to be the biggest powerhouse, political powerhouse, in America today. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: "MC Rove," performed at the 2007 Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner, with NBC's David Gregory, Karl Rove among the backup dancers. Yes, this is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. And we're speaking with Craig Unger. His new book, Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. We're going to turn right now to another scandal involving Karl Rove, the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. The Bush administration outed her in retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson's accusations that President Bush lied about Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium form Niger before the Iraq war. It was the whole deceit around weapons of mass destruction. Let's begin by playing the famous comment of Joe Wilson in 2003.

JOSEPH WILSON: At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the famous comment of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, frogmarching Karl Rove out of the White House in handcuffs. Craig Unger, explain what the Valerie Plame scandal was and what Karl Rove had to do about-with it and why he was almost indicted.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, the Valerie Plame scandal, of course, was-Joe Wilson had been an ambassador to African countries. He was sent to check out allegations that the Republic of Niger had sold or was trying to sell yellowcake uranium to Saddam Hussein. This became part of the 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union address that called for war against and launched the war against Iraq. And the allegations, of course, were not just false, but they were based on forged documents. And worse than that, the forged documents had been revealed as forgeries, I found at least 14 times, within the administration before Bush's speech, but they still got in it, and the war went ahead with it.

Since Wilson had discovered they were-the allegations were false, he later wrote a very famous column, an op-ed piece in the New York Times, saying what I found in Africa ["What I Didn't Find in Africa"], and he revealed that. And this was destroying the Rovian narrative, the Bush administration's narrative. So, in retaliation, they outed his wife, Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a CIA agent, and exposed her. And that's what it was all about. And this showed that they would stop at nothing to maintain their narrative. They were trying to discredit Joe Wilson. I think they sort of didn't realize exactly how far they were going. And this was potentially a crime, so this started the whole Valerie Plame investigation.

Now, Bush said he would fire anyone who was responsible for this leak. And one thing that's absolutely clear is that Rove, though he was not the only one-Scooter Libby was later indicted and convicted-Rove played a very, very key role in this. And he did leak Valerie Plame's name-rather, her identity, that she was a wife. At one point he said, "I didn't say her name." Well, he said this is Joe - "Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent. She set up everything." And he told that to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. So, and Rove went on to lie about it again and again.

I think there's, oddly enough, a link in those two clips you just showed of MC Rove dancing with the press and Joe Wilson, because what is important here, in some way, is the press's complicity with this. What you see is, when Karl Rove is your source, you are beholden to him. I read Bob Novak's memoirs, the late columnist, who was the man who first printed Valerie Plame's name. And he says, rather tellingly, that "Karl Rove was my A-plus source for many, many years." And he was sort of Novak's meal ticket. And Novak goes on to say, "But when that happens, of course, you never write a critical word about him." And a lot of the press was like that. And you see in that clip a lot of the correspondents dancing with Rove.

AMY GOODMAN: How did Rove escape indictment? I mean, Scooter Libby went down, Judith Miller.

CRAIG UNGER: Well, I think it was by a sheer stroke of luck. And there was a woman reporter at Time magazine named Viveca Novak-no relation to Bob Novak. And she would have drinks occasionally with Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin. And occasionally, they-during one conversation, Rove's lawyer said, "Well, Karl is in danger from Matt Cooper at Time." And she let it slip that, yes, he was. And this was-so, suddenly, Rove was being called before the grand jury, I think a total of five times. He had said again and again that he had not leaked it to anyone. He said that he didn't recall any conversation with Matt Cooper. This turned out to be a lie, frankly. He had told this to Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. He had told it to President Bush. This had been his story again and again. And he was finally caught in a lie, and now his attorney realized it. So Rove willingly asked to go back to the grand jury and correct the information. And on that basis alone, I believe he escaped a perjury indictment.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: You also talk in your book about Rove's relationship to the judiciary. You say that no other political strategist in history has ever been so deeply indebted to the U.S. Supreme Court, and you talk about a couple of key decisions that went along with what Rove was lobbying for.

CRAIG UNGER: Right, exactly. I mean, there are two United States Supreme Court decisions that are among the two most controversial in history. And one, of course, is in 2000, Bush v. Gore, and the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, effectively appointed Rove's candidate president of the United States. And again in 2010, also by a five-to-four majority, the Citizens United decision opened the gateway for the super PACs and for the billion dollars Rove controls today.

And Rove has always known this, I think, about the judiciary-excuse me. In Texas in-back in the '80s, he started taking over the Texas Supreme Court, and he flipped it from heavily Democratic to heavily Republican. He did the same in Alabama. A lot of people don't realize he had a real power base in Alabama. And he played a key role in the appointment of U.S. attorneys. And it's also-one of his clients was John Ashcroft of Missouri, and Rove made-got him appointed attorney general of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: And he was one of the names being mentioned if Akin were to pull out.

CRAIG UNGER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute to go. As you wrote this book, as you wrote Boss Rove, what most surprised you? What do you think it's most important to understand about this man who has now become perhaps the most powerful political operative in America?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, I think it's the enduring aspect of the changes. We see it in the Siegelman going to jail, that this is-this started over 10 years ago with Siegelman, and now he's going to jail perhaps for eight years. I just think it's an absolute travesty. And Siegelman is just one example out of dozens and dozens. So, you have what I think are real threats to democracy that have a lasting power, and with things like the voter suppression drive, that these-a lot of these issues are real threats to democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: Craig Unger, we want to thank you very much for being with us, author of Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. It hits the bookshelves on September 4th. He's contracting editor at Vanity Fair, where you can read an excerpt from Boss Rove. We'll link to it on our website.

That does it for the show. We'll be broadcasting two-hour specials every day from the Republican and Democratic conventions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 Next > End >>

Page 3273 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