RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Our Hillary Print
Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:29

Bronner writes: "With the implosion of the Donald Trump's presidential campaign, extended arguments are unnecessary regarding the choice between Hillary Clinton and her proto-fascist adversary. She is a ruthless neo-liberal politician with great polish and sophistication, whereas Trump is a bully, a liar, and a threat to American democratic traditions."

Hillary Clinton listens to questions at the Rochester Opera House campaign town hall meeting in Rochester, N.H., on Jan. 22, 2016. (photo: Faith Ninivaggi/Reuters)
Hillary Clinton listens to questions at the Rochester Opera House campaign town hall meeting in Rochester, N.H., on Jan. 22, 2016. (photo: Faith Ninivaggi/Reuters)


Our Hillary

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

23 October 16

 

ith the implosion of the Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, extended arguments are unnecessary regarding the choice between Hillary Clinton and her proto-fascist adversary. She is a ruthless neo-liberal politician with great polish and sophistication, whereas Trump is a bully, a liar, and a threat to American democratic traditions. Hillary is erudite and always prepared, while Trump is erratic and shoots from the hip. Hillary served her country as a first lady, a senator, and a secretary of state, while Trump is a huckster businessman born with a silver spoon in his mouth who declared bankruptcy six times, cheated small investors, supports unrestricted gun rights and deregulation, and betrayed Atlantic City. Hillary’s judicial appointments will surely support equal pay for equal work, a woman’s right to choose, civil liberties, and an attack on Citizens United. Hillary’s administration will fund Planned Parenthood, restrict gun sales, and inject a degree of civility into a polarized environment. There is also symbolic importance in electing a woman to the highest office, especially when a blatant sexist is intent on representing the worst elements of the American polity in the aftermath of the election. Such differences alone provide enough reason for any rational person to vote for Hillary.

No doubt the primary fight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was rigged. Former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee played favorites. Hillary was also aided by established liberal media outlets like CNN and MSNBC and progressive commentators who, now full of righteous indignation, fawned over Wasserman Schultz in her seemingly incessant guest appearances. Along with the disparity in financial contributions by elite donors and the more than 400 delegates pledged to Hillary before the primaries even began, it was as if Bernie had to win a baseball game in which he was losing 6-0 before the first pitch was even thrown. Indeed, from the first, Hillary benefited from anti-democratic organizational tactics and structural imbalances of influence and power that favored the mainstream in the Democratic Party.

Most progressives understand that elections are always about choosing the “lesser of two evils.” But there remain enough angry Bernie supporters, depressed by his defeat, who seem unwilling to sully their radical principles in theory even though their refusal to vote can only up whatever legitimacy Trump and his “alternative right” retain. What will Hillary do if she wins? She represents the right wing of the Obama administration, which has supported international free trade pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Perhaps she will switch gears, perhaps not. In any event, from a neo-liberal standpoint, gaining a competitive advantage in the international free market means lowering labor costs and welfare programs. Hillary has made concessions to Bernie’s people on a number of issues and she drew up the party platform with him. But suspicion is warranted. After all, while president, Bill Clinton proclaimed that he would “end welfare as we know it.”

Hillary is legitimately characterized as a “liberal hawk.” Obsessions with her emails while secretary of state, and the outrageous attacks on her role in the Benghazi fiasco, deflect attention from what is far more important. Hillary is uncritical when it comes to NATO and she seems to have learned little from the Iraqi War or her “mistake” in supporting it. Hillary’s commitment to “regime change” in Libya produced the disintegration of a sovereign state, ongoing conflicts among warring tribes, extremists spilling over the borders, and the heightening of regional instability. She has called for increased bombing in support of a fractious and ineffective Syrian opposition, strengthening the American military presence in Iraq, and an unworkable (and potentially explosive) “no fly zone.” Her stance on Israel has also been far less critical than that of President Obama. Admittedly, she has championed human rights. But this should fool no one: human rights mostly serve liberal hawks as a cover for the pursuit of interventionist strategies. Hillary enthusiasts, especially, should inform themselves about the dark side of her politics rather than dogmatically protect her from criticism.

President Obama hit the mark in his convention speech targeting Trump with the phrase: “Don’t boo! Vote!” But we should know what we are getting into – and our position will need to change the day after the election. Those who are not DNC style enthusiasts will undoubtedly find themselves on the outside. They will recognize the need for protest and going into the streets soon enough. No less than her husband, Hillary tends to employ a “triangulation” strategy that targets what liberals have called “the vital center.” The strategy works like this: Trump is against raising the minimum wage; Bernie Sanders endorses raising it to $15 per hour; and then there is Hillary calling for $12 per hour. The Republicans have little to say about student debt; Bernie raises the prospect for free education at public universities; and Hillary comes in with “debt-free” education. Hillary has turned compromise into a principle and, conceptually, she surrenders strategy to tactics. Down the road, Hillary’s willingness to endorse radical proposals will depend far less on whether she is a nice person or a feminist than upon the degree to which social movements and non-governmental actors exert pressure, and (regarding reforms) make her do it.

American movements come to life when Democrats are in office. They flourish more under liberal than explicitly right-wing administrations. That has been the case under President Obama as well. Marches in support of immigrants had a pronounced political impact. So did Occupy Wall Street as well as the Living Wage campaign and Black Lives Matter. Insofar as she represents the right wing of the Obama administration and is less indebted to those on her left, however, Hillary will probably be more difficult to influence than he was. All the more reason to support Bernie’s insurgents in trying to create their own organizational structure: “Our Revolution.” Maybe it can function like the Poor People’s Movement of the late 1960s with one foot inside and the other outside the Democratic Party. Perhaps it will go in another direction entirely.

Time will tell whether “Our Revolution” can sustain itself. Bernie has remained relatively quiet during the presidential campaign and he has stuck to familiar themes. There is even a sense in which his movement is on hold. But it has brought hundreds of thousands of people into the political process and it has provided the Democratic Party with the most radical platform in its history. Who would have thought that “Feel the Bern” was possible? For decades, we were told that using the socialist label and talking about class was politically suicidal. As usual, the “pragmatists” were not only wrong but out of touch. Thirteen million people were inspired by a different and radical message. When the presidential primaries began, free tuition at public universities, breaking up the banks, single payer health insurance (or even the public option), $15 minimum wage, and a transformed tax code were blasted by mainstream media as “unworkable,” “unaffordable,” and “utopian.” Not anymore. Concessions to the rebels have already been made by the liberal establishment and, after Hillary’s victory, radicals will need to keep up the pressure. Of course, something dramatic can always happen that might change their focus (not least the unlikely triumph of Trump). The Republicans will be in shambles, but it is foolish to believe that the alternative right will go away. Only one political posture makes sense for progressives with regard to the Democratic Party: critical solidarity.



Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. His most recent book, The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists, will appear in paperback next month with Yale University Press.

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
 
Never Ryan? Never McCain? Print
Sunday, 23 October 2016 08:12

Galindez writes: "Psssssst ... Hey, Trump supporters, the Never Trumpers have abandoned you. They are doing everything they can to stop your guy. I just have to ask, why should you remain loyal to them?"

Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. (photo: KTLM)
Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. (photo: KTLM)


Never Ryan? Never McCain?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

23 October 16

 

sssssst … Hey, Trump supporters, the Never Trumpers have abandoned you. They are doing everything they can to stop your guy. I just have to ask, why should you remain loyal to them? Let’s face it, they have ruined any chance your guy had to become president. Why don’t you send them a message? Don’t vote in the down-ballot races, and let them pay a price for their decision.

Okay, you’re right: I have no sympathy for Donald Trump and I think he ruined his own campaign. I don’t believe he believes any of his populist message. I think he is using your anger and desire for change. He says what he knows you want to hear. If you really want change and want to reform our politics, then throw the bums out! Here is a list of just the GOP members of Congress who are not voting a straight party line.

Paul Ryan said he will no longer have Trump’s back. So don’t have his back. Don’t vote for him.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said she will write Jeb Bush’s name in on the ballot in November. So you should write in someone else’s name in her Congressional race.

Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican who represents southeastern Pennsylvania, said he doesn’t intend to vote for Trump or Clinton. “I’m not planning to vote for either of the two major-party nominees.” Vote third party in his race too.

Adam Kinzinger, who criticized Ted Cruz for not endorsing Trump at the convention in Cleveland, is now saying he can’t vote for Trump. You shouldn’t vote for Kinzinger either.

Mike Coffman said, “For the good of the country, and to give the Republicans a chance of defeating Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump should step aside.” Give him his walking papers.

Bob Dold said, “Whether it be Mr. Trump’s comments about women, his comments about Muslims, his comments about Latinos, for me it was very personal his comments about POWs.... I want to make [sure] that I’m clear about this, I’m not going to support Hillary Clinton either. I would write someone in.” Well, so should you in his Congressional race.

Scott Rigell said that he will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. Is there a libertarian running against him?

Dave Reichert said that, after the release of a video in which Trump boasts about sexually assaulting women, “Donald Trump has lost my vote.” Has Reichert lost yours?

Reid Ribble said in December that he would not back Trump if he became the nominee. In June, he said Trump was “likely to be a racist.” Now, along with Rep. Scott Rigell and a slew of operatives, he has signed a letter asking the RNC to withdraw resources from the Trump campaign and concentrate on holding Congress. Withhold your vote from Ribble.

Jason Chaffetz said, “I’m out. I can no longer in good conscience endorse this person for president. It is some of the most abhorrent and offensive comments that you can possibly imagine.” Does he have your vote?

Barbara Comstock said, “I cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump.” Can you vote for her?

Martha Roby said, “Donald Trump's behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president and I won't vote for him.” Is she acceptable to you?

Joe Heck called on Trump to step down.

Cresent Hardy said he will no longer support Trump.

Mia Love said, “His behavior and bravado have reached a new low. I cannot vote for him. For the good of the party, he should step aside.”

Will Hurd said, “I never endorsed Trump and I cannot in good conscience support or vote for a man who degrades women, insults minorities, and has no clear path to keep our country safe.”

Steve Knight said, “While I’ve never before endorsed a Presidential candidate, I’ve felt compelled to strongly condemn many of Mr. Trump’s previous outrageous remarks. And after serious consideration, I have decided that I cannot support either candidate for President.”

John Katko said, “I am certainly not going to vote for him.”

Kay Granger called on him to withdraw in the wake of a video in which he boasts about sexually assaulting women.

Rodney Davis has called on Trump to step down in favor of Mike Pence. “I am rescinding my support for Donald Trump and asking to have my name removed from his agriculture advisory committee.”

Ann Wagner said, “As a strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault, I must be true to those survivors and myself and condemn the predatory and reprehensible comments of Donald Trump,”

Tom Rooney will not vote for Trump in the wake of a video in which Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women. Rooney will also not vote for Clinton. Rooney was one of the earliest members of Congress to back Trump. “I’m a Republican and he’s our nominee. All these people who are saying they’re not going to support who the Republican primary electorate has chosen need to re-evaluate why they’re part of this team. The people have spoken and you have to respect that.” I guess Rooney quit the team.

Erik Paulsen called a video in which Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women “disgusting and offensive,” adding, “I will not be voting for him.”

Frank LoBiondo said he will vote for Mike Pence instead of Donald Trump. “I cannot support and will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States.”

Jamie Herrera Beutler said she will write in Speaker Paul Ryan for president.

Those are just the members of the House of Representatives who will not be supporting the GOP nominee. Of course they are showing that they are sane. They are making the right choice. No person of morals should vote for Donald Trump.

But ...

If they are not supporting the party nominee, then you don’t have to vote a straight ticket either. I dare you: vote against any Republican who isn’t voting for your guy.

Imagine if all of these incumbents lost their seat because they abandoned Donald Trump. What a powerful message that would send … (wink)



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

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
 
I Spent 28 Years on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit Print
Sunday, 23 October 2016 08:12

Hinton writes: "Eventually, he told me I was being arrested for a robbery. I told him, 'You have the wrong man.' He said, 'I don't care whether you did it or not. You will be convicted.'"

Anthony Ray Hinton: 'I had to watch 54 men walk past my cell to be executed.' (photo: Mark Chilvers/Guardian UK)
Anthony Ray Hinton: 'I had to watch 54 men walk past my cell to be executed.' (photo: Mark Chilvers/Guardian UK)


I Spent 28 Years on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit

By Anthony Ray Hinton, Guardian UK

23 October 16

 

Every night, I go outside and look up to the stars and the moon because for years, I could not see them

was 29 and mowing the lawn at my mother’s house in Birmingham, Alabama, on a hot day in July 1985 when I looked up and saw two police officers. When my mom saw the handcuffs, she screamed. They asked me whether I owned a firearm, and I said no. They asked if my mother owned one, and I said yes. I asked the detective 50 times why I was being arrested. Eventually, he told me I was being arrested for a robbery. I told him, “You have the wrong man.” He said, “I don’t care whether you did it or not. You will be convicted.”

At the station, it became clear I’d been at work when the robbery occurred. The detective verified this with my supervisor, but then told me they were going to charge me with two counts of first-degree murder from two other robberies. They said my mother’s gun was the same kind as the one used at the crime scene, and that I matched the description of the man they were looking for. That was enough for them to pursue charges.

When I met my appointed lawyer, I told him I was innocent. He said, “All of y’all always say you didn’t do something.” I might have seen him three times in the two years I waited for trial. The only evidence linking me to the crime was the testimony of a ballistics expert who said the bullets from the murder weapon could be a match to my mother’s gun. They found me guilty and on 17 December 1986 I went to death row.

On death row, the day starts at 2.45am. At 10am they bring lunch. Dinner was at 2pm. And that was it. They don’t care about actual mealtimes: they say they have to get through everyone, so they start early. The cell was 5ft x 7ft. You spend about 24 hours in there.

For three years I didn’t say a word to another human. I had to watch 54 men walk past to be executed. My cell was 30ft from the chamber and I could smell the burning flesh. There were 22 who took their own life. Going into my fourth year, I heard the man in the cell next to me crying. He told me his mother had died. I said, “Well, now you have someone in heaven to argue your case.” The next morning, it was as though a light had come on: my sense of humour was back.

I let my mind travel. I visited the Queen; I married Halle Berry. My mind went everywhere, and at night I’d come back and check on my body.

Without lawyer Bryan Stevenson and the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), I wouldn’t be where I am now. I wrote to him after seeing him on TV one day while being walked back to my cell. I got to meet him in 1995 and finally had someone to fight for me.

He hired a ballistics expert and when we got the news that the bullets didn’t match, we went to the attorney general. They refused to take an hour to re-examine the case because it would be a “waste of taxpayers’ money”, and I sat on death row for another 16 years.

EJI kept pushing for a retrial and eventually, on 3 April 2015, the State of Alabama dropped all charges. I was released that same day. I couldn’t take it in: when you’ve been locked up for nearly 30 years, nothing is the same. It was like walking out on to another planet at the age of 58. Someone had to introduce me to the internet. My mother had died, but I was fortunate to have a best friend who let me move in and who supported me.

In jail, you spend all your time thinking of the things you’re going to eat, only to get out and discover you want nothing. I bought a king-size bed – after sleeping in the foetal position for years, I dreamed of stretching out. I’ve been out of prison for a year and half now, and I have yet to stretch out.

Every night, I go outside and look up at the stars and moon, because for years I could not see either. I walk in the rain, because I didn’t feel rain for years. Now, I am determined to go wherever I am asked to help end the death penalty. I am so thankful that I get to travel with Lifelines and EJI, and share my story.

I’ve never had an apology, but I forgave those involved in my conviction long before I left prison. I didn’t forgive them so they can sleep well at night. I did it so I can.

As told to Fran Singh


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
AT&T to Purchase Time Warner for $80 Billion in Latest Media Megamerger Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38755"><span class="small">Eric Levitz, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 23 October 2016 08:11

Levitz writes: "Good news for anyone who thinks America's leading telecom companies are too small and powerless - AT&T has agreed to buy Time Warner for more than $80 billion."

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. (photo: Getty Images)
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. (photo: Getty Images)


AT&T to Purchase Time Warner for $80 Billion in Latest Media Megamerger

By Eric Levitz, New York Magazine

23 October 16

 

ood news for anyone who thinks America’s leading telecom companies are too small and powerless — AT&T has agreed to buy Time Warner for more than $80 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The reported deal is is the largest merger of content and distribution since Comcast purchased NBC Universal in 2011.

The merger will provide AT&T with copious content to distribute via its wireless, broadband, and satellite TV infrastructure. The telecom has been aggressively seeking an entertainment empire to bring under its umbrella, so as to stock an over-the-top video service it hopes to launch by 2017. Acquiring Time Warner gives that video service privileged access to programming from TNT, TBS, CNN, HBO, and Warner Bros.’ film and television studios.

The purchase, then, will be AT&T’s attempt to occupy a profitable place in the age of cord-cutting. As the Journal noted on Friday, Time Warner’s portfolio of news, prestige programming, and high-value sports content is likely to stay in high demand among cable distributors, even if competition from streaming services forces them to shrink their bundles, to bring down monthly fees.

However, that scale could prove the deal’s undoing. Regulators expressed concerns about the Comcast–NBCU deal five years ago. And since then, the appetite for antitrust enforcement — particularly within the Democratic Party — has grown significantly.

Throughout her 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton has pledged to fight the “excessive concentration” of power within key industries. Whether a Clinton administration would deem AT&T’s ambitions excessive remains to be seen. The telecom giant has donated $196,952 to Clinton’s campaign this cycle, according to Open Secrets.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Get Ready to Ignore Donald Trump Starting on November 9, or He'll Never Go Away Print
Sunday, 23 October 2016 08:10

Jilani writes: "One way to look at Trump's run for the presidency is as an attention-getting, brand-building exercise from start to finish. And in that context, this latest twist makes even more sense: It turns his otherwise sputtering campaign into a sort of dystopian season of 'The Apprentice' where viewers watch for the cliffhanger: Will Trump bow out gracefully, or will he rally his supporters to declare his loss the result of a grand conspiracy?"

Trump - Pence venue in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (photo: Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images)
Trump - Pence venue in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (photo: Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images)


Get Ready to Ignore Donald Trump Starting on November 9, or He'll Never Go Away

By Zaid Jilani, The Intercept

23 October 16

 

onald Trump’s true gift is his uncanny ability to capture the attention of the news media.

His declaration during Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate that he may not accept defeat in three weeks captured global headlines, once again making him the lead story in the world, even as his chances of winning are essentially vanishing.

But this is nothing new. There are countless other examples of successful attention-getting in Trump’s past, including his crusade against the Central Park Five in 2005, and the six weeks in 2011 where he monopolized TV news with his quest to find Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

In fact, one way to look at Trump’s run for the presidency is as an attention-getting, brand-building exercise from start to finish. And in that context, this latest twist makes even more sense:  It turns his otherwise sputtering campaign into a sort of dystopian season of “The Apprentice” where viewers watch for the cliffhanger: Will Trump bow out gracefully, or will he rally his supporters to declare his loss the result of a grand conspiracy?

Not coincidentally, a half hour before the start of Wednesday’s debate, his campaign launched #TrumpTV, a livestream on his Facebook featuring Trump surrogates — leading to speculation that this served as a sort of a beta test for a rumored Trump-helmed television network. With that network, Trump could seek to monetize a panicked support base.

On November 9, when Trump likely loses the presidential election in a big way, the news media will face a moment of truth: Will they continue to obsessively cover him and his post-election antics? Or will they ignore him?

They should ignore him.

And ignore means ignore. It doesn’t mean giving him half the air time he received during the campaign, or a quarter.  It doesn’t mean covering his crazed claims and conspiracy theories and bringing on a panel of guests to debate them or fact-check them.

It’s appropriate to talk about the legitimate grievances Trump co-opted — such as the flaws of the global trade regime or excessive Washington, D.C., coziness. It’s also appropriate to talk about the strains of nativism in the United States that he sought to tap into. But those discussions should be about the issues, not about Trump.

Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Al Gore all saw their media coverage plummet to almost nonexistence following their defeats — so why should Trump be treated any differently?

Throughout the campaign, the media has been Trump’s best ally. From the start of primary season through February 2016, Trump received an estimated $2 billion of free media  from network executives. (By comparison, John McCain spent around $400 million for his entire 2008 campaign).

For the corporate media, Trump provided gripping TV and easy ratings with next to no work — just set up cameras in front of his events and let him talk. “Go Donald! Keep getting out there!” CBS chief executive Les Moonves told investors last year.

Trump’s actual political operation, on the other hand, has been barely existent. In July, his campaign spent more money on t-shirts and hats than it did on campaign staff. Without willing media coverage, Trump is little more than a moment, not a movement. Without cameras pointed at him, his relevance has a far shorter half-life than an actual political insurgency. Trump is far more Groucho Marx than Karl Marx.

And some in the media have come to realize that offering nonstop — and unfiltered — coverage of Trump for the past year and a half was a mistake. CNN President Jeff Zucker — who previously elevated Trump by airing “The Apprentice” when he was NBC president — admitted as much during a recent talk at Harvard.

“If we made any mistake last year, it’s that we probably did put on too many of his campaign rallies in those early months and let them run,” he said. “Listen, because you never knew what he would say, there was an attraction to put those on air.”

By the time Trump had secured the Republican presidential nomination, journalists had no choice but to cover the spectacle as news. But come November 9, Zucker and other media bigwigs will have a chance to make the right call.

Trump’s campaign has been crafted around a man who transformed his Twitter trolling into real-life trolling. Trolls thrive on attention. They wither without it.

And think of all the time the news media would suddenly have to spend on matters that are actually in the public interest.

By contrast, every additional second of attention the media gives him after the election will be that much more free publicity.

If Trump decides to build a media empire, he can do it without the willing assistance of the media we already have. They’ve done him enough favors already.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Next > End >>

Page 1856 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