RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
GOP Ticket 2012: Romney-Rubio Print
Tuesday, 03 January 2012 10:00

Intro: "Since my New Year's prediction that Obama would select Hillary Clinton for his running mate in 2012 (and Joe Biden would become Secretary of State), I've been swamped by requests for my GOP prediction. Here goes."

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



GOP Ticket 2012: Romney-Rubio

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 January 12

 

ince my New Year's prediction that Obama would select Hillary Clinton for his running mate in 2012 (and Joe Biden would become Secretary of State), I've been swamped by requests for my GOP prediction. Here goes.

You can forget the caucuses and early primaries. Mitt Romney will be the nominee. Republicans may be stupid but the GOP isn't about to commit suicide. The other candidates are all weighed down by enough baggage to keep a 747 on the tarmac indefinitely.

For his running mate, Romney will choose Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida. Why do I say this?

First, Romney will need a right-winger to calm and woo the Republican right. Tea Partiers are attracted to Rubio - an evangelical Christian committed to reducing taxes and shrinking government. Rubio's meteoric rise in the Florida House before coming to Congress was based on a string of conservative stances on state issues.

Rubio is also a proven campaigner, handily winning four House elections starting in 2002, and then beating popular incumbent Republican governor Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary - with the help of Tea Partiers.

Moreover, he's only 40, thereby giving the GOP ticket some youthful vigor.

And he's Hispanic - a Cuban-American - at a time when the GOP needs to court the Hispanic vote.

Rubio's only baggage is the "son of exiles" controversy - his suggestion that his parents were refugees forced out of Cuba by Castro when in fact they moved to the United States before the Cuban revolution.

But this isn't the sort of slip that would keep him off the ticket. In fact, Romney has defended Rubio, saying "I think the world of Marco Rubio, support him entirely and think that the effort to try to smear him was unfortunate and bogus."

Finally, and most critically, Florida is a crucial swing state. Rubio would help deliver it.

So it will be Obama-Clinton versus Romney-Rubio.

And what's my prediction for Election Day? Obama-Clinton hands down.

I warn you, though. Political predictions, economic forecasts, and astrology differ in only one respect. Astrology has a fairly good record of being correct.


Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
BREAKING: Mitt Romney Is Kind of Awkward Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9456"><span class="small">Ana Marie Cox, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 03 January 2012 09:54

Intro: On December 28, "the New York Times revealed that Mitt Romney 'strains to connect in a personal way' with voters. Well, duh."

Mitt Romney: who says he's uneasy and unnatural? (photo: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)
Mitt Romney: who says he's uneasy and unnatural? (photo: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)



BREAKING: Mitt Romney Is Kind of Awkward

By Ana Marie Cox, Guardian UK

03 January 12

 

Today, the New York Times revealed that Mitt Romney 'strains to connect in a personal way' with voters. Well, duh

oday, the New York Times offered readers a "close-up study of Mr Romney's casual interactions with voters," which is awesome if you're a voter planning on having a casual interaction with Mr Romney. Or if you've had one and still wonder, what did it mean? That is what close-up studies are for! (Also, Google.)

It turns out that Mitt can be "uneasy" and "unnatural" and "strains to connect in a personal way," traits that will come as no shock to the millions of viewers of the umpteen presidential debates, but may serve those citizens who have spent the primary up to now huddled in a cave, waiting for the apocalypse. I speak here, of course, of Michele Bachmann supporters.

I don't want to poke too much fun at the Times for reporting the story – you've got to fill space somehow, and since he's spent over five years running for president, the number of things new to say about Mitt Romney has already long passed zero. We're in negative space as far as information about Mitt goes, where every piece of information passed along about him actually causes us to know less. Romney's recent barb at Newt Gingrich, comparing Newt's attempts to get on the Virginia ballot to "Lucy in the chocolate factory" has, for example, made most reporters forget to question what the point of that comparison could possible be. (Though the image of Newt stuffing bonbons into his mouth is dangerously easy to conjure.)

Reporters hold as an article of faith (because it's not borne out by either elections or polls) that voters give a lot of weight to a candidate's having-a-beer-with quotient, so "MITT LOSING VOTERS BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO GUESS THEIR AGES" was probably what editors were thinking when they allowed such time and energy to be devoted to their "study."

Actual Iowa citizens seemed puzzled, but not alienated, by Romney's quirks: "I don't mind stiff and formal," said one. Another told the candidate himself: "I have a lot friends who say you are the robotic type. And I am like, no, you need to stay that way because you are a leader."

Is it that hard to believe that Romney might lose Iowa because people are wary of his policies, not of his programming?

The Times's piece also underscores a simple fact about the economics of reporting from the campaign trail: it's so expensive, yet the news to be gleaned from direct observation so scanty, one must squeeze from each moment as much news-like substance as possible. The Times got 1,300 words out of this particular examination. As Romney says in the article: "That is a lot of milk."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The NDAA Is Our Mayan Moment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=13446"><span class="small">Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley's Blog</span></a>   
Monday, 02 January 2012 17:59

Turley writes: "President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country...and citizens partied on blissfully into the New Year."

American flag behind barbed wire, and all that implies, 06/15/09. (photo: File)
American flag behind barbed wire, and all that implies, 06/15/09. (photo: File)



The NDAA Is Our Mayan Moment

By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley's Blog

02 January 12

 

resident Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country ... and citizens partied on blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not "support our troops" by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The "American way of life" is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin - using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains, a reluctant President with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this un-American measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens, however, are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year ... make 2012 the year you regained your rights.

Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:


THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Source: ABC

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Shall We Tell Our Children, Mr. President? Print
Monday, 02 January 2012 17:54

Andelman writes: "Shall we tell them how you came into office... wrapped in a message of hope and change... promising transparency... saying you're one of us... and then how you fought relentlessly to help the people of this country? Or should we tell them the truth, Mr. President?"

President Obama notices some pre-school children peering out of a window at a child care facility in Bethesda, Maryland, 06/09/11. (photo: Pete Souza/White House)
President Obama notices some pre-school children peering out of a window at a child care facility in Bethesda, Maryland, 06/09/11. (photo: Pete Souza/White House)



What Shall We Tell Our Children, Mr. President?

By Martin Andelman, Reader Supported News

02 January 12

 

t's 4:00 AM. I couldn't sleep...

I had lunch with my 15-year-old daughter today. It's her Homecoming Dance this coming weekend, and with 12 of them all going together, they thought they'd get a limo to take them to dinner and then to the dance. The kids were struggling with being able to afford it and get it done, so she called me. My wife and I decided to help them make it happen. But that's not my point here...

During lunch she said in passing: "Maybe a few years ago when people had money..." and it made me sad to realize that they know... they see and hear what's happening in this country... they see people, including me, working more and worrying more. This has already affected their lives growing up. They'll take the feelings they have today with them through the rest of their lives.

I'm going to vote for President Obama in 2012... again. I'm going to do so because I see no viable alternative. And I will pray for us all.

But, what shall we tell our children, Mr. President?

Shall we tell them how you came into office... wrapped in a message of hope and change... promising transparency... saying you're one of us... and then how you fought relentlessly to help the people of this country? Or should we tell them the truth, Mr. President?

How you turned your back on the working class in this country to favor the banking class. How you decided that a mediocre healthcare bill was your priority over 20 million Americans losing their homes. How voters became so angry with your administration that you lost control of the congress after only two years and now we face gridlock and nothingness as a result. What shall we tell the children about how your decisions affected this country, Mr. President?

Should we tell them how things are fair in this country, that we are a nation of laws and that we are all equal in the eyes of those laws? Is that even true anymore, Mr. President? Should we tell them about our nation's Founding Fathers and how they envisioned a representative democracy, a republic, in which our elected representatives represent the will of the people? How can we show them their vision and claim it came true, Mr. President?

Should we tell them how we are a nation, one people, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? That united we stand and divided we fall? That we never leave Americans behind; that we care about the poor as we care about the rich? How can we tell them these things, Mr. President? Is this what you and your wife are telling your children, Sir?

What should we tell them about the future of this country? That the working class people of this country all became irresponsible at the same time, went out and bought homes they couldn't afford, and now deserve to be losing them... 20 million or more Americans... all losing their homes, and that once that happens our economy will be better? Is that what you'd have us tell them, Mr. President?

Because that's crap, Sir, and I don't lie to my daughter... ever. So, I think I'd prefer to tell her the truth about what's happened, Mr. President. That a small group of rich bankers broke laws, abused our financial system, caused the incalculable pain and suffering they see around them... that our government was inept... that they looked the other way because they were so out of touch with the way the world really worked... works. That we can't really trust them because they will be influenced by moneyed lobbyists pedaling the views of a small segment over the needs of the nation. That we cannot trust or believe in politicians when they say things, whether to get themselves elected, or otherwise.

Like you, Sir... that they cannot trust people like you, Mr. President.

Shall we tell them that this is the land of opportunity, and that we strive to make that opportunity as equal as possible? That crime doesn't pay, and that they can be anything they want to be as a citizen of this great land? Because that's what I was told as a child, and I've believed it all of my adult life, Sir. But not anymore, Mr. President... and not because of what our last president did or didn't do, but only because of what you have and have not done.

You alone have caused me to lose my faith in America, Mr. President. How could you allow that to happen, Sir? I feel a loss so great and so tragic that I can barely think of it without weeping, Sir. I wonder if Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Kenny Lewis, Dick Fuld, John Mack, John Stumpf, Vikram Pandit... and all the rest... do you think any of them feel that way, Mr. President? They received record bonuses for their role in our nation's fall from grace, I wonder what they will tell their own children about this time. Do you wonder that as well, Sir?

I haven't lost a house, Mr. President. I haven't lost a job either. And yes, my daughter and her friends will be driven by limousine to their Homecoming Dance. And you can know that I thank God and this country every day that my wife and I were able to make that possible.

But, because of your policies I also know that no one in this country is economically safe, and no one will be safe for a long, long time. Millions more will endure pain and suffering to a degree that should not be possible in this country. And that's your fault, Mr. President, not President Bush's, or anyone before him. You were given the ball, and it was yours to run with... but you ran the other way.

What shall we tell our children about that, Sir? That you said you were a man of the people when you were riding around Iowa? Do you think the people of Iowa knew what you'd do once in office, Mr. President? Because I surely did not know, Sir, I surely did not know.

What shall we tell the children, Mr. President? How can we tell them the truth? How can we tell them that we've lost faith in America... that our government has abandoned us... that we no longer feel like a nation whose government is of the people, for the people, and by the people? That thus far you've failed us, Sir.

What shall we tell our children, Mr. President?


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
 
FOCUS | Where Were the Wall Street 'Perp Walks' in 2011? Print
Sunday, 01 January 2012 15:07

Excerpts: "As every media critic learns, the worst sin of our press is not its blatant biases, or crimes of commission, but rather the pervasive patterns of omission; what's left out! ... It has yet to happen and most media outlets are not focusing on why. I am referring to the lack of any real investigation of Wall Street crimes, and the indictments of wrongdoers. I am talking about 'perp walks' by guilty Wall Street CEOs on their way to joining Bernie Madoff in some institute of incarceration."

Street art at Occupy Wall Street expresses a widely-held sentiment towards banks, 09/22/11. (photo: jamie nyc/flickr)
Street art at Occupy Wall Street expresses a widely-held sentiment towards banks, 09/22/11. (photo: jamie nyc/flickr)



Where Were the Wall Street 'Perp Walks' in 2011?

By Danny Schechter, Al Jazeera

01 January 12

 

s every media critic learns, the worst sin of our press is not its blatant biases, or crimes of commission, but rather the pervasive patterns of omission; what's left out!

Already, with two weeks to go, the Associated Press has crossed the finish line with the top choice of the newspapers it serves. Perhaps in the outdated spirit of Mark Twain's famous dictum that: "There are only two forces that can carry light to all corners of the globe - only two - the sun in the heavens and the Associated Press on earth", their pick for story of the year is the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The AP can't bring itself to label it for what it was - a state-sponsored assassination.

As ever, the mainstream/lamestream - call it what you will - media tails after people in power and promotes/validates their great achievements, even when it was an extra-judicial murder in the dead of night.

Institutional power is their main beat and they beat it to death with every deadline and every headline.

There is no utterance by any political hack - like most of the GOP presidential menagerie - that goes unreported.

On the progressive side of the street, 2011 was 'All Occupy All The Time', with the growing movement against economic inequality getting the most glowing attention.

I am certainly in this camp even if the encampments are mostly gone, with a TV documentary, several radio shows, countless articles and blogs, and now, a book collecting all my output, called, what else, but OCCUPY?

And yet, the story we have yet to see is the one that will ultimately define this era of avarice and insult in a year of media obsession in the US with the Kardashian wedding and break-up, the Michael Jackson trial, and the daily scandal that is there to titillate and drive up ratings.

It has yet to happen and most media outlets are not focussing on why. I am referring to the lack of any real investigation of Wall Street crimes, and the indictments of wrongdoers. I am talking about "perp walks" by guilty Wall Street CEOs on their way to joining Bernie Madoff in some institute of incarceration.

Lack of Investigative Oversight

This is not a call for revenge, but for justice. The reason: the barely exposed chain of criminality that started in some salon of securitisation and then rippled across the world, bringing down countries and economies. It has its origins in Wall Street, where three industries colluded as a cabal to sell fraudulent subprime loans and then transfer fees and foreclosures from poor and middle class Americans to themselves.

Where is the examination of the pillars of our "FIRE" economy - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. They became the interconnected cogs in a leverage machine to enrich themselves while plundering the rest of us.

So far, this story affecting so many millions has not really crashed through in the 1 per cent media machine with a few exceptions here and there.

If you want to find out about this story of the year and years past, in all of its disgusting detail, you can't just trust major media. You have to read Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, a music magazine, or blogs like Mandelman on Ml-implode.com, Naked Capitalism, Credit Writedowns, ZeroHedge, ProPublica, or Amped Status.com, to cite a few.

TV show host Dylan Ratigan has been a lonely voice on MSNBC while academics like former bank regulator William Black and former Bank economist Michael Hudson speak out frequently on the criminal environment that Wall Street has wrought in alternative outlets.

Journalists like Robert Scheer, Greg Palast and Chris Hedges write regularly on issues that from time to time make it into the columns of New York writers like Paul Krugman, Getrchen Morgensen, Frank Norris and James Stewart. All these opinion pieces rarely lead to follow-ups in the news section.

Overseas, the Telegraph in London has made this a beat as has Max Keiser's programmes on RT and Press TV. There have been some Al Jazeera docs, but business channels like CNBC prefer to focus on greed by colourful bad guys, not the more boring but ultimately criminal practices by banks.

Most of our media is mesmerised by the antics of individuals, not the impact of institutions, Most media outlets are parochial, unwilling to see the economy as globalised force, with the US playing a major role.

'Too Big to Question'

Just as many outlets did not warn us about the coming market meltdown, most are not warning us today about what will happen if the depression we are already sinking into deepens.

The military is making contingency plans as things get worse; reports the Telegraph, "The military planning work has come to light after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that British embassies in the eurozone have been told to prepare emergency plans for the demise of the euro and the possible civil disorder that could follow."

This could be one reason for the passage of the new NDAA defence authorisation bill that provides for rounding up dissidents branded as terrorists while suspending legal protections.

Already, a European economic think-tank called LEAP, with a history of credible projections, warns soberly, "Already insolvent (the US) will become ungovernable bringing about, for Americans and those who depend on the United States, violent and destructive economic, financial, monetary, geopolitical and social shocks."

Does anyone really believe that our political leaders in both parties know what to do? Along with the Fed, they have been pumping trillions into the economy to mostly no avail. The promised recovery has yet to show its head.

The trends forecaster, Gerard Calente, is more despairing than most prognosticators, even predicting the possibility of a revolution.

He saves his fiercest words for "media morons" who avoid the stories that matter most, noting:

"And the bigger they got, the more untouchable they became. TV Money Honeys, fast-talking finance finaglers, Nightly News anchors, Sunday Morning Beltway Blowhards, and Talk Show Tough Guys genuflected, scraped, kissed up and bowed down before those magnificent men in their money machines.

When these kings, queens and aristocrats of 21st-century commerce spoke, their ex cathedra judgments went unquestioned. Thus, when they warned that if the "too big to fail" were allowed to fail the world financial system would collapse, their conclusions went unchallenged. No evidence was provided, no proof was needed, and no explanation was tendered. Harvard, Princeton, Yale ... the White Shoe Boyz had spoken. They who invented the "too big to fail" were "too big to question."

What Matters Most Is Covered Least

So here we are once again at year's end debating our picks for the most important news stories of the year, and peering into a future that most of us don't want to see, as a narrow view stifles our politics and vision becomes a word reserved for eyeglass ads.

What matters most is covered least. The financial industry is likely to expose itself and bring itself down before the media does the job it should be doing this by demanding reform consistently.

I may have been dissecting news too long because I think I may have written many of these words before. In the year ahead, I am going to try to keep writing about the resource rich - even as I become more resource "challenged" while talking about what's not in the news but should be.

I will be doing my bit by reviving a Media Channel as Mediachannel1.org with our colleagues at OpEdNews.com and invite readers to remember and revitalise the words of my radio colleague, San Francisco's, "Scoop" Nisker, who ended his newscasts with these words:

"If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

Filmmaker and News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs for Newsdissector.com. His latest book is Occupy: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street. For information and to share your comments, write: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 Next > End >>

Page 3372 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