RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Judging Obama Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 21 January 2012 15:58

Ash begins: "Some time has now passed since President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its so-called 'homeland battlefield' provisions. Time for reflection."

President Barack Obama attends the memorial service for victims of the Tucson, Arizona, shooting, 01/12/11. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama attends the memorial service for victims of the Tucson, Arizona, shooting, 01/12/11. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images)



Judging Obama

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

21 January 12


Reader Supported News | Perspective

 

ome time has now passed since President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its so-called "homeland battlefield" provisions. Time for reflection.

The signing was a moment that defined his presidency, thus far. The decision is itself a microcosm of the man and his method. In that moment, "who he is" was on full display.

It should be noted that the indefinite detention provisions contained within the NDAA are every bit as egregious and damaging to the republic as their critics lament.

Obama's strategy in opposing the homeland battlefield provisions, and his ultimate capitulation, were as complex as he is. To understand the capitulation it is necessary to not lose sight of the gamble. When Obama said that he would veto the bill if the indefinite detention provisions were not removed, he was taking a politically irrational, almost desperate gamble. The problem for Obama was that it was a gamble he was almost certain to lose, a risk no man focused on self interest would ever take.

Like all military spending legislation since Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-industrial-complex warning fell on deaf ears, the 2012 NDAA and its homeland battlefield provisions had overwhelming support from a Congress all too eager to fawn at the Pentagon's feet to avoid the vengeful wrath of conservative media enforcers. If that meant permanently damaging fundamental constitutional guarantees, so be it. They were only following orders.

The final Congressional vote tallies were as easy for Obama and his advisors to forecast as they were for his relentless critics. In the House it was a landslide: 65% voted to approve the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions. In the Senate it was far worse: Aye - 93, Nay - 7. That presents some problems for a "president."

When George W. Bush said (and he appears to have said it on several occasions), "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," he opened a window into his soul. He was a man who fully intended to get his way. Whoever or whatever the cost. It's difficult to say what Bush would have done if Congress had defied his will in overwhelming measure. They never did - the stakes were always too high. Whether they feared or admired him, as an institution Congress always obeyed him.

So what would Obama do faced with a Congress who opposed him in unilateral measure? Would he respect or attempt to repress their will? To back away from his promised veto was a guaranteed political embarrassment. Yes, the homeland battlefield provisions were an affront to democracy, but to reject the will of a unified Congress is the stuff of which monarchs are made. Obama had two choices, to conduct his affairs like an autocrat or like a president. They had the votes to override his veto. He had gambled against very long odds, and lost. However, let it not be forgotten that he gambled on the right thing, and accepted the political consequences. The curious thing is that Obama's opposition still remains.

The Cordray Affair

It looks like Obama has bought into Elizabeth Warren's vision for a viable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In this case, Obama got his majority from Congress. The CFPB was approved as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. It didn't matter to business-friendly members of Congress. Their mission is simple: block, thwart, stall Obama, Cordray, and the Consumer Protection Agency at all costs.

Obama defied them. He ignored their "Congress is technically in session ruse" and proceeded with a recess appointment of Cordray. It's actually a fairly bold move. Industry-obedient members of Congress are literally blathering about treason and constitutional transgression over a Consumer Protection Agency. It's all rather amazing. So in the Cordray affair, Obama seems a fairly willing combatant.

The XL Pipeline Demur

There are some really powerful players pushing really hard for a pipeline to be built from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf of Mexico. Really powerful, really hard. Believe it. There's a vigorous debate about exactly what Obama's "rejection" of the XL Keystone really means. (Note: My spell checker offered me "viperous" as an alternative to "vigorous." That would have worked too.) At any rate, while it's not clear whether Obama's rejection was a permanent blow to the project or a temporary tactical demur, one thing is clear: what Obama did do was something the oil industry did not want him to do.

Gone From Iraq?

The Obama administration's decision to pull the bulk of US forces out of Iraq is a step in the right direction, but not a full withdrawal by any means. In 2012 we will spend a projected 3.5 billion dollars to maintain the largest "diplomatic" mission in world history housed in part in the largest, most heavily fortified and militarized embassy on earth. Iraq, however, appears to be wasting little time in asserting its sovereignty. Iraqi security forces have begun arresting and detaining US security contractors at a prodigious rate. A practice sure to resonate with Iraqi citizens. Overall, Obama has made commendable progress on Iraqi sovereignty, but much more is needed.

So while Obama clearly does not bring the fire or oratory of an FDR or a Dr. King, and he does not win every battle, he appears to be pointed in the right direction and he is determined.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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
 
Newt's South Carolina, Blood for Bloodsport's Sake Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 21 January 2012 15:54

Pierce writes: "It was always going to happen this way - Newt was going to go back into his wheelhouse, ripping the media and spouting in the general direction of the White House whatever pile of pejorative adjectives popped into his head at the moment."

Newt Gingrich's campaign bus at a stop in rural South Carolina. (photo: Esquire)
Newt Gingrich's campaign bus at a stop in rural South Carolina. (photo: Esquire)



Newt's South Carolina, Blood for Bloodsport's Sake

By Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine

21 January 12

 

f you want to see how things have swung here - and, if Gallup is to be believed, how they may be swinging elsewhere as well - there's no better place to be than a largely abandoned strip mall tucked into a back-alley off Soper Mountain Road. There's a hardware store gone under, and there's a chop-shop mortgage brokerage that's been dark for a while, probably since the collapse of 2008 - which, as we all know, was brought on by the overregulation of an underregulated industry, and by the loans given out to black people, or something like that. The only sign of life, the only place of business with the lights on that's filling up the spaces in the parking lot, is the storefront on the end with the big NEWT 2012 banner on it. Outside on the small patio, groups of people, staggering under dozens of yard signs, are sent on their way. Inside is a gabbling cacophony of spontaneous conversation, and the recitation of phone-bank scripts from dozens of volunteers, their voices staggered like a group of kids around the campfire, singing a round. The rooms all bear names - The Cold War Room, The Trenches. There's an undeniable sense of something moving here. Another load of pizzas arrive, and everybody cheers.

It was always going to happen this way - Newt was going to go back into his wheelhouse, ripping the media and spouting in the general direction of the White House whatever pile of pejorative adjectives popped into his head at the moment. He tried, lamely, to be a statesman, and the party faithful ignored him. Once he became the vandal he was born to be, the political arsonist among the abandoned tenements of Republican thought, he was bound to take off again. The base doesn't want someone whose ideas on job creation will triumph because they are superior to the president's. They want somebody who can beat him bloody, vicariously, on their behalf, somebody who can "put him in his place." They want someone who will kill the administration just for the sheer fun of watching it die. That's why Newt's fortunes took off after he slapped around Juan Williams on Monday night, and that's why they went into hyper-drive on Thursday when he declared to be "despicable" any public mention of the chronic staff-banging that wrecked his second marriage and that helped wreck his speakership. Sooner or later, he was going to light the whole race on fire just to giggle over the flames, and that meant he had to come do it in South Carolina, and that meant he had to come do it in the upcountry around Greenville, where the base of the base always has been located, where people can be found who will gleefully join him around the bonfire, where is located the ancient home office of American treason.

"Look," says Kellen Giuda, the young National Coalitions Director for the Gingrich campaign, waving his hand over a map of the state that hangs on the wall not far from The Cold War Room, "this area down here in the South, this was always more moderate. This is where McCain won last time. Up here, around Greenville, that's always been the more conservative area. This time, people concentrated their effort down there near Charleston, because they wanted to get that whole military vote down there locked up. But, now, they're starting to see that this is the place where the conservative vote really come from." The endorsements are coming thick and fast now - Rick Perry! Michael Reagan! One-hundred Tea Party leaders from around the country! - and they are settling on Newt, and not on Rick Santorum, because Santorum, while admittedly a dick, is not an angry bully of a dick, and that's what the base is looking for. In fact, the Gingrich campaign tore up its schedule on Friday, and will now have the candidate working the upcountry districts around Greenville hard all primary day.

Sondra Ziegler drove 22 hours from Lubbock to sit back there in The Trenches and phone-bank for the campaign. (This beats her previous record of having driven 16 hours to do the same thing in Des Moines before the Iowa caucuses.) Her mother drove down from Kentucky to join them. She home-schools her three young children - Abigail, Alexandra, and Samuel, 10, nine, and five, respectively - and, if they do campaign work, she says, they don't have to do schoolwork. Apparently, campaign work is like recess. "My oldest is out there now, knocking on doors," Ziegler smiles.

She had not been very politically active before this year. "I did some boots-on-the-ground stuff in the general election, but never anything for the primary." She and her children even have become temporarily famous; NPR did a piece on them earlier this week.

Ziegeler's argument for Gingrich is based on electability, but it's not the kind of electability argument put forth by the Romney people, which is dead-assed and based on money and visibility and ads and sterile salesmanship. Ziegeler believes that Newt is the most electable Republican because he can "stand up to Barack Obama in a debate." She was moved to hit the road by watching Gingrich in the earlier debates, and his recent performances have strengthened her resolve. "I believe this is a critical time for our country," she says. "We need someone who can take the fight to Barack Obama."

Sondra Ziegler is not an angry person. She is not a nasty person. But she is also making an argument for electability based on blood and sinew and the raw bloodsport that's been on display since Newt disposed of his statesman's kid gloves and shined up the brass knuckles again. This is where Newt Gingrich's politics were born, places like this, deep in the unreconstructed Id of the unreconstructed South. He was always going to come home.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How Serious Is Stephen Colbert? Print
Saturday, 21 January 2012 12:10

Ball writes: "It is not every day on the campaign trail that one gets to see a onetime Republican presidential frontrunner recite the lyrics to a children's cartoon theme, then burst into song, then submit himself and his party to vicious mockery by a liberal satirist."

Stephen Colbert rallies with Herman Cain in South Carolina, 01/19/12. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)
Stephen Colbert rallies with Herman Cain in South Carolina, 01/19/12. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)



How Serious Is Stephen Colbert?

By Molly Ball, The Atlantic

21 January 12

 

t is not every day on the campaign trail that one gets to see a onetime Republican presidential frontrunner recite the lyrics to a children's cartoon theme, then burst into song, then submit himself and his party to vicious mockery by a liberal satirist.

"I came here to praise one man - one Her-man," Stephen Colbert told an enthralled crowd here on Friday. He added, "A her-man is not the same thing is a she-male. I don't want to frighten off any Santorum supporters."

The her-man was, of course, Herman Cain, the out-of-work former candidate who was so unjustly ejected from the 2012 race by the "Democrat machine" that he accused of somehow causing numerous women to accuse him of a history of infidelity and sexual harassment.

"Herman Cain is an outsider," Colbert said. "In fact, he is such an outsider, he is not even running for president anymore. He is a man with ideas; a man with convictions; a man with a bus with his face on it."

He whipped the crowd into a roar as he called Cain to the stage: "The Her-man with a plan, the plan so fine they named it nine-nine-nine! The Mad Max of the flat tax! The Indiana Jones of opportunity zones! The Her-man, the Her-myth! My brother from another mother - Mr. Herman Cain!"

That ovation, before he opened his mouth, was the biggest cheer Cain would get from the youthful crowd of thousands, packed under trees draped with Spanish moss in an elegant 18th-century college courtyard.

The applause for his vague exhortation to take Washington back was tepid and disapproving. When he praised the Tea Party, there were boos and a shout of "Occupy Herman Cain!" When he told them not to take Colbert's advice and vote for his defunct candidacy - "I don't want you to waste your vote," he said - it was pretty clear whose side of the issue the crowd was on.

And then there was "the Pokemon thing": Apparently prompted by an audience member, Cain, who had quoted the theme from Pokemon: The Movie 2000 as the words of "a poet" on the campaign trail, intoned the lines in his rumbling bass, then sang:

Life can be a challenge.
Life can be impossible.
It's never easy when there's so much on the line.
But you and I can make a difference.
There's a mission just for you and me.

Cain was the court jester of the 2012 field, the man who reliably brought the house down at campaign events and debates with his shtick about "fixing the problem" - itself a near-parody of politicians' fatuous odes to common sense. But next to Colbert, he wasn't very funny. He was a laughingstock, and he didn't seem to be totally in on the joke.

All of Colbert's jokes, though, couldn't disguise the earnestness of his own plea. He has become a campaign-finance activist, forming a "super PAC" with the help of a real campaign-finance lawyer who once worked for John McCain in order to satirize the shambles of the regulatory regime. In the latest twist, he's handed the super PAC over to his Comedy Central colleague Jon Stewart so that he can explore running for the presidency in South Carolina, his home state.

"The pundits have asked, is this all some joke?" Colbert said. "And I say, if they are calling being allowed to form a super PAC and collecting unlimited, untraceable amounts of money from individuals, unions, and corporations, and spending that money on political ads and for personal enrichment, and then surrendering that super PAC to one of my closest friends while I explore a run for office - if that is a joke, then they are saying our entire campaign finance system is a joke!"

About this point, Colbert appears to be completely serious. He roundly mocked the idea of corporate personhood, one of the underpinnings of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, calling himself "the Martin Luther King of corporate civil rights - the Lockheed Martin Luther Burger King, if you will." He called out the "unelected justices of the Supreme Court" who ruled in that 5-4 majority: "Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, the other Scalia and the tall guy, I want to say Gary something." (He was looking for Kennedy.)

In the wake of the Citizens United decision, liberals are now nearly as furious at the judiciary as conservatives, who invented the modern court-bashing franchise. And Colbert, who embarked on this venture too late to get on the South Carolina ballot, is urging his fans in the state to vote for Cain instead (over Cain's objections). The idea, beyond the joy of an old-fashioned prank, seems to be to send a message about corporate influence in politics, though it's a rather convoluted way to go about it.

There is a real, bipartisan backlash brewing against super PACs, which have had a major impact on the race for the GOP nomination already. Newt Gingrich complained bitterly about their attacks (Colbert: "I am not going to answer the gotcha question about whether I am interested in an open marriage, although I am flattered that Newt Gingrich asked me"). Mitt Romney has claimed to loathe them even as they do much of his campaign's dirty work (Colbert: "The only difference between a statue and Mitt Romney is that a statue never changes its position"). Republican voters on the campaign trail in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina routinely grumble about their clogging of the airwaves.

But while Colbert cloaked his serious point in sarcasm, Cain seemed a bit pained by the way the comedian was proposing to make a mockery of the electoral system, as evidenced by his plea not to be voted for. Seen through the lens of an earnest would-be participant in that system, Colbert's stunt seemed less clever than cynical, less irreverence than sabotage.

In a half-hour or so of canvassing the Colbert audience, nary a Republican voter could be found. Most were Democrats or liberal-leaning independents, relieved to have a campaign event of their own to attend amid all the Republican campaigning in their state.

Naylor Brownell and Nick Shalosky, a gay couple in their 20s who attended Colbert's speech, said they planned to follow his instructions and vote for Cain. South Carolina does not have registration by party, so any voter can cast a ballot in Saturday's Republican primary.

"The best part was when Herman Cain told us all to stay informed, when he's not informed at all," said Shalosky, a law student who says he is South Carolina's first openly gay elected official - he sits on a local school board.

"I thought, 'Maybe you should stay informed about, for example, Syria,'" said Brownell, a medical resident.

Both commended Colbert for exposing the ridiculousness of the campaign finance system. And Brownell had this to say about the actual Republican candidates: "They're more of a joke than Stephen Colbert is."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Media Blackout on Third Parties Print
Saturday, 21 January 2012 10:09

Higgs writes: "Rocky Anderson is no fringe figure. He is a two-term mayor of Salt Lake City, who, in addition to announcing for president in December, earned a national reputation for his ultra-progressive positions on gay rights, environmental sustainability and the Iraq War - while being elected and re-elected in Utah."

Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson announces his run for the Presidency of the United States on the Justice Party Ticket on the campus of The University of Utah in Salt Lake City, January 13, 2012. (photo: George Frey/Reuters)
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson announces his run for the Presidency of the United States on the Justice Party Ticket on the campus of The University of Utah in Salt Lake City, January 13, 2012. (photo: George Frey/Reuters)



The Media Blackout on Third Parties

By Steven Higgs, CounterPunch

21 January 12

 

atching Newsweek's Eleanor Clift confront the question "Are most political reporters simply insiders?" is a discomfiting experience. Her struggle to defend the indefensible unavoidably inspires compassion for her uneasy predicament. But the case she makes so proves the point that any sympathy engendered morphs quickly into cynicism.

The political reporter appeared on a Dec. 29, 2011, panel discussion on Al Jazeera, subtitled the question du jour. Joining her were Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson, of whose candidacy Clift knew nothing. Al Jazeera devoted a third of the half-hour program's opinions to the former Salt Lake City mayor. Clift apparently had never heard of him.

"I think Rocky Anderson is running probably to get his issues out there, more than from an expectation that he might necessarily win," she awkwardly speculated aloud, unsure about the Justice Party's name, no less.

Clift, who also contributes to The Daily Beast, defended the media's treatment of third parties, which independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2008 called a "blackout" and "political bigotry." To the contrary, she asserted, the media love the drama third parties bring.

"The last thing the press corps wants is a Romney-Obama race," she said in an edition of Al Jazeera's Inside Story: U.S. 2012. "Think of that, for all those many months."

Clift acknowledged the anger the American people feel toward their government and their yearning for more choices and parties. And she said the media has responded, sort of. They have covered speculative third-party bids by Donald Trump and Ron Paul and will be doing more.

"There are two sort-of-third-party entities," she added, "Americans Elect, which is going to have an Internet convention and choose a ticket, and No Labels, which is trying to get away from Republican and Democrat. They're not actually going to mount a ticket."

Clift mentioned neither Jill Stein nor Kent Mesplay, declared 2012 Green Party candidates. Her defense for ignoring alternative parties:

"Hundreds of people file to run for president. You have to have some sort of screen."

***

Rocky Anderson is no fringe figure. He is a two-term mayor of Salt Lake City, who, in addition to announcing for president in December, earned a national reputation for his ultra-progressive positions on gay rights, environmental sustainability and the Iraq War - while being elected and re-elected in Utah.

The candidate is widely known for his high-profile relationship with Mitt Romney, with whom he worked to rescue Salt Lake's 2002 Winter Olympics. Despite their ideological and party differences - Anderson was a Democrat at the time - the two endorsed each other's subsequent bids for Salt Lake mayor and Massachusetts governor.

Just 17 days before Clift met Anderson in the Al Jazeera studio, The Guardian columnist Gary Younge published a piece subtitled "US history is littered with failed third parties, but the progressive populism of Salt Lake City's ex-mayor might just break the mould."

Three months prior, her fellow Newsweek columnist and Beast contributor McKay Coppins penned a column about Anderson titled "Why Salt Lake's Mayor Lost Faith in Mitt."

A TalkingPointsMemo search for "Rocky Anderson" produced 21 stories, dating to 2007.

On Al Jazeera, Clift said she would like to know more about the Justice Party. But she warned history is not on Anderson's side.

"I think if you look at our tradition in American politics, I don't think we've ever elected somebody who is a former mayor," she said. "Usually our presidents come from the Senate or governors."

Furthermore, Clift added, third parties make people nervous. Nader's 2000 Green Party candidacy "hurt the candidate he was closest to," she alleged, referring to Democrat Al Gore. And in 1992, "Pat Buchanan probably caused the defeat of the Republican who he was closest to."

Buchanan ran against George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries, not as a third-party candidate. Texas oil man Ross Perot ran in the general election on the Reform Party ticket against Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton.

Anderson assured Clift that his is a serious campaign and is in fact a winner's strategy.

"People across the political spectrum in this country want to see a major change in our system, where the corrupting influence of money carries the day against the public interest," he said, citing a list of public-policy failures as examples.

Failed leadership on climate change - "We know that's due to the corrupting influence of money from the fossil fuel industry." Failure to provide essential health care for all citizens - "It's because of the corrupting influence of money from the insurance industry."

Clift's argument that alternative party candidates hurt their natural political allies was based on fundamentally false assumptions, Anderson said. A poll taken 10 days after he entered the race gave him 4 percent support, with Romney beating Obama in a one-on-one matchup.

"When you threw me in the mix, Obama won," he said.

***

The Al Jazeera discussion took place just days before the Iowa caucuses, as Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul led the polls. Clift shrugged off the suggestion that the media's failure to take him seriously until that point was a "massive failure."

"I think there is a widespread assumption, which I share, that Ron Paul, who is 70-something years old and is really a libertarian, is in the end not going to be the Republican standard bearer," she said.

Her fellow panelists rejected that line of defense for ignoring, for example, his radical, antiwar views.

Anderson said the media ignoring Paul's candidacy and failing to seriously examine his racist past and social-Darwinist approach toward government aided and abetted his caucus success.

"How many people really knew that when we're reading on the front page of the New York Times about Mitt Romney's hair?" he said. "The column inches that have been devoted to Mitt Romney's hair and the man who cuts his hair, it is obscene when we've got so many issues that aren't being covered."

Five days after the program, Paul finished third in Iowa with 21 percent of the vote. A week later, he finished second in the New Hampshire Primary, garnering 23 percent.

Al Jazeera graphics accompanying the program said a 2002 Harvard Kennedy School poll showed 89 percent of Americans believe the media focuses too much on "trivial issues." It also showed 62 percent do not trust media election coverage, and 82 percent believe media influence is too great.

Goodman insisted Americans do not want the kind of simplistic, horse-race, beauty-contest coverage that the broadcast media routinely deliver.

"They're force fed it," she said.

Goodman said the Occupy Wall Street movement has shown what the media say the public cares about isn't true.

"It's resonating with most people in this country," she said of the Occupy message. "People are saying they are tired of the media catering to the 1 percent, instead of exposing the 1 percent."

That deference to the economic elite, Goodman added, extends to the third-party candidates the media does cover, predominantly people with enormous personal wealth, from Ross Perot to Donald Trump.

"These are the people they will focus on," she said. "But Rocky Anderson, who instead of having money lays out a platform?"

While the press corps focuses on trifles like the kind of cereal Mitt Romney eats - "sugary," according to a CNN report - Anderson said it ignores the fact that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Sixty percent of those imprisoned are African-American or Latino, even though they represent only 30 percent of the population.

"I want to ask any journalist, 'When was the last time you talked about the prison-industrial complex in this country?'" he said.

While Clift termed the CNN cereal report ultra trivia - "There's a lot of time to fill on the cable networks" - she agreed the prison issue is "genuine" and said it "may come up in the periphery."

She defended the soft stories.

"Just like we have People magazine along with Time and Newsweek, people do want to know about these personalities," she said.

Anderson said that a time when the disparity between the rich and the middle and working classes is at its greatest point in a century, the media's preoccupation with the aristocracy is evidence this truly is the new gilded age.

"What a betrayal by the media of our democracy," he said. "During the races, it's the time when people's attention is centered on these issues. It's a great time educate people."

***

A CNN correspondent reported the cereal detail about Romney while "embedded" with the campaign, a journalistic development that Goodman and Anderson repudiated.

Goodman agreed with the suggestion that the embed concept, which began with reporters in the Iraq War, was created by the military as a technique to limit media coverage, not enhance it.

"It has brought the media to an all-time low," she said. "… The way they stay on a campaign is they talk about sugary cereal. They start raising hard questions of the campaign candidates, they'll often be thrown off the bus."

In addition to the prison-industrial complex, cable news outlets could fill all that airtime covering the increasing restrictions put on Americans right to vote, Goodman said. States with the largest African American and Latino populations have increasingly restricted voter registration laws.

"These issues have to be addressed because at the same time they are limiting the ability for people to understand what the issues are and what these candidates represent, fewer and fewer people in this country are being able to vote because of repressive legislation," she said.

Anderson reiterated his contention that the media's misplaced priorities give short shrift to the public's desire for fundamental change in the system.

"This is what the American people want across the political spectrum," he said. "We want to get the corrupting influence of money out of the system, even if it requires a constitutional amendment to get rid of this Citizens United case."

Clift laughed when asked if she feels complicit with a system that is entirely corrupted and doesn't serve the people, though she did agree money has "flooded" the system.

"I don't know how to turn that around," she said. "I don't know how you get the support for a constitutional amendment to get rid of that Citizens United case, because you have to overcome all these hurdles."

Goodman said it would help if the news media covered the issues instead of the personalities.

"We're not perfect," Clift said. "But we put a lot of stuff out there."

Steven Higgs edits the Bloomington Alternative.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Romney Bombs, and Other Thoughts on the GOP Debate Print
Friday, 20 January 2012 15:53

Taibbi writes: "The most interesting part of seeing these guys up close is seeing the way people like Rick Santorum and Gingrich respond to Romney in person: They appear to find him physically repulsive, their noses even scrunching up at him when they address him, like cops opening up a trunk with a body in it."

Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)



Romney Bombs, and Other Thoughts on the GOP Debate

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

20 January 12

 

have an article about South Carolina and the GOP race coming out in Rolling Stone soon, so I can't say too much about that race here. But I do have a few quick notes about last night's debate in Charleston, which I had the misfortune to attend.

• I was astonished to wake up this morning and read, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, this assessment of Romney's performance: "Mitt Romney turned in one of his strongest debate performances, defending his business record and laying into President Barack Obama as aggressively as he has in any previous debate."

I don't know Journal writers Patrick O'Connor or Neil King, so I can't say for sure if they were there last night, but if they were, were they watching the same event as the rest of us? I thought Romney was a disaster and last night very nearly achieved the impossible: sharing a stage with Newt Gingrich and looking like the bigger asshole.

To me, the exchange where he fell overboard mid-answer and had to ask moderator John King what the question was ("But you asked me an entirely different question?") came close to being an Ed Muskie moment.

The most interesting part of seeing these guys up close is seeing the way people like Rick Santorum and Gingrich respond to Romney in person: They appear to find him physically repulsive, their noses even scrunching up at him when they address him, like cops opening up a trunk with a body in it. And I think it's real, I don't think it's an act. Romney is so totally insincere and calculating and soulless, it physically offends other politicians. It's incredible to watch.

• I've given up trying to predict this race. Watching the events of last night, I saw plausible nomination scenarios for all four candidates. Don't forget that if the merry-go-round of incompetence continues much longer - if Romney and Newt and Santorum keep hot-potatoing frontrunner status and primary victories - Ron Paul is going to waltz into the convention with a mass of delegates and a legit argument that he was the strongest and most consistent candidate.

• Standing next to the bloodless corporate cipher Mitt Romney and the pompous, bloviating egomaniac Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum - creepy religious lunatic Rick Santorum! - came off like Clarence Darrow breaking up a Klan rally. "Rick Santorum, en fuego!" cracked one of the reporters in the media room, during Santorum's tirade about Newt's "grandiosity."

• After the revolution comes and the Show Trial/Firing Squad period of our history begins, someone from CNN is going to have to answer some very tough questions about "Kevin," the cheesy guy the network brought onstage before the debate to warm up the crowd and introduce John King. Casual viewers at home did not have to see this performance, so I won't share anything about it here, but if anyone among the press or the audience from last night has an explanation for me about that whole business, please write to me and let me know, because I'm very confused.

Anyway, I have to get back on the road to a Mitt rally. More later ...

P.S. I'm giving away a hi-res "Starve The Squid" poster to the reader who comes closest to calling tomorrow night's election results. I'm guessing:

Gingrich 31

Romney 23

Santorum 23

Paul 23

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 Next > End >>

Page 3364 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