To make up for my two day hiatus, here is another interesting article on McCain from of all sources the Wall Street Journal; an editorial by Daniel Henninger entitled "Is John McCain Stupid?":
On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."
This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.
He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.
Yesterday he was in Aurora, Colo., to wit: "On Social Security, he [Sen. Obama] wants to raise Social Security taxes. I am opposed to raising taxes on Social Security. I want to fix the system without raising taxes."
I doubt that McCain is stupid, though he does seem to have some of the aloofness to issues and general political knowledge another candidate once showed (you might remember him, he got a job as the leader of the free world). The problem is that the very subset of the American public that will probably decide this election is more likely to have a view of Brittany Spears in their head than a list of the inconsistencies in McCain's positions from one day to the next. Obama should make those inconsistencies clear to the public through a series of TV ads that highlight the real flip-flopper in this election, and the fact that while flip-flopping is not that bad if based on changing circumstances; is a character flaw when based solely on political expediency.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
McCain Moves into the Surreal; TV and Kids
First the election: McCain's latest ad moves beyond the realm of understand, into the surreal -- arguing that Obama is just too popular to be president. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-tone31-2008jul31,0,3819744,print.story) Huh? While the ad seems absurd to the point of nonsensical, I wonder if it is part of the building strategy to show that "Obama isn't one of us." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/politics/31campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print) The question is does this mean he is an elitist, an out-of-touch liberal American or, huh, maybe just a Black man that many Republicans believe is a Muslim? And the comparisons to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton while funny is really a new low. The point though is it could very well work. Americans love an underdog and they also love a president they believe at some level is like them. Obama is hard-pressed to fit in that role, while McCain can continue to play on the largely positive perspective of the media and general public to congeal right into that mold. But how low will he go, appears to be the question of the hour? Of course, according to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius in his fawing op-ed today, none of this is his fault (he's just being manipulated by those around him): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073002948_pf.html. In response, one might ask if his entire theme of being more ready to serve as commander in chief isn't undermined by the fact he can't seem to come up with a reason to be president except "better of two evils" and can't seem to stand up for himself against the wishes of his advisors.
On a cultural note, two recent reports have fueled the arguments about TV and children:
1) A study by Cornell that appears to provide evidence that the skyrocketing rates of autism are related to television viewing in the early years (before age 4): http://www.slate.com/id/2151538. So those immunization shots might not be so bad after all; it's Disney, the Cartoon Network, Miley Cyrus and the rest of the made-for-young children TV that really deserve a second look (but by researchers and parents, not kids!)
2) A report by the APA that "Baby Borrowers" may cause harm to young children and adolescent's mental health. Don't worry though, NBC thinks it a good way to sell the show, and that's all that really matters, right?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/07/30/baby_borrowers/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/broadsheet
On a cultural note, two recent reports have fueled the arguments about TV and children:
1) A study by Cornell that appears to provide evidence that the skyrocketing rates of autism are related to television viewing in the early years (before age 4): http://www.slate.com/id/2151538. So those immunization shots might not be so bad after all; it's Disney, the Cartoon Network, Miley Cyrus and the rest of the made-for-young children TV that really deserve a second look (but by researchers and parents, not kids!)
2) A report by the APA that "Baby Borrowers" may cause harm to young children and adolescent's mental health. Don't worry though, NBC thinks it a good way to sell the show, and that's all that really matters, right?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/07/30/baby_borrowers/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/broadsheet
Monday, July 28, 2008
Double-Speak
Thomas Shaller of Salon's War Room makes a point today worth considering -- can the relentless attack of McCain put a permanent dent in Obama's image, leading many to question his character and thus vote against him? American politics over the past few decades has been dominated by the distance between image and reality, with the image appearing to win out much of the time. Can McCain beat the truth, the pundits and the issues right out of this campaign, as appeared to be the case in 2000 and 2004? It is certainly possible.
Lest us forget that most Americans believed Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 and that they further believed at least one Iraqi was on one of the planes (even as pictures of them plastered papers for weeks) long after both those lies had been exposed. I've gotten emails from conservative friends with the "Obama is a Muslim" line and warnings of a terrorist takeover of the country. The truth is we are a country that hates intellectual elites and loves monied elites (particularly of the celebrity type). And if McCain can make it stick that Obama is cocky, elitist (remember Hillary started that theme), a flip flopper (from the ultimate flip flopper of recent memory) and not really ready to lead; we could certainly see a shift in the favorite after the conventions. At the same time, the press (with the notable exception of Fox) has certainly started to at least question McCain for his increasingly dirty campaign. And even some in his own party are impugning his tactics:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) criticizing John McCain's latest ad on CBS' Face the Nation, "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, 'You're less patriotic than me. I'm more patriotic.'"
By the way, it turns out McCain has been to fewer Afghanistan meetings than Obama over the past two years (0), even as he is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. And he has now entered a new level of double-speak by denying his own words in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (see clip here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/election_central_sunday_roundu_25.php).
Lest us forget that most Americans believed Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 and that they further believed at least one Iraqi was on one of the planes (even as pictures of them plastered papers for weeks) long after both those lies had been exposed. I've gotten emails from conservative friends with the "Obama is a Muslim" line and warnings of a terrorist takeover of the country. The truth is we are a country that hates intellectual elites and loves monied elites (particularly of the celebrity type). And if McCain can make it stick that Obama is cocky, elitist (remember Hillary started that theme), a flip flopper (from the ultimate flip flopper of recent memory) and not really ready to lead; we could certainly see a shift in the favorite after the conventions. At the same time, the press (with the notable exception of Fox) has certainly started to at least question McCain for his increasingly dirty campaign. And even some in his own party are impugning his tactics:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) criticizing John McCain's latest ad on CBS' Face the Nation, "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, 'You're less patriotic than me. I'm more patriotic.'"
By the way, it turns out McCain has been to fewer Afghanistan meetings than Obama over the past two years (0), even as he is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. And he has now entered a new level of double-speak by denying his own words in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (see clip here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/election_central_sunday_roundu_25.php).
Sunday, July 27, 2008
McCain Hits a New Low (Hard to Believe, Isn't It?)
Frank Rich has a great editorial in the New York Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print), considering the ways in which Obama has already had a profound influence on the political landscape in the U.S. and on the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. At the same time, the latest ad from McCain has come out . . .
"Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.He hadn't been to Iraq in years.He voted against funding our troops.And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.John McCain is always there for our troops.McCain. Country first.John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
This ad shows not only the ongoing desperation and in-civility of McCain, but really the bankruptcy of his run for president. More than any Republican candidate in history, McCain has nothing to offer the country and is thus running a campaign based completely on critique, with no real alternatives offered. Can we really afford more tax cuts and less government regulation right now? Can we really afford a president who admits relative ignorance on foreign affairs and economics? Can we really afford a president who got the war wrong, but got the surge right? If this is the best the Republicans have to offer, we might see a huge Democratic victory in November across the board.
"Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.He hadn't been to Iraq in years.He voted against funding our troops.And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.John McCain is always there for our troops.McCain. Country first.John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
This ad shows not only the ongoing desperation and in-civility of McCain, but really the bankruptcy of his run for president. More than any Republican candidate in history, McCain has nothing to offer the country and is thus running a campaign based completely on critique, with no real alternatives offered. Can we really afford more tax cuts and less government regulation right now? Can we really afford a president who admits relative ignorance on foreign affairs and economics? Can we really afford a president who got the war wrong, but got the surge right? If this is the best the Republicans have to offer, we might see a huge Democratic victory in November across the board.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Straight Talk Express Vears South . . .
toward Texas from what I can tell. In less than a month the calls for civility, real talk on the issues and a different kind of presidential campaign have taken a clear turn toward the Rove strategy that gave Bush two terms in the presidency, and a nation a lesson in how bad a one-minute mistake in the voting booths can affect their lives. The Washington Post sums up McCain's hypocrisy in this telling editorial today . . .
Failing in CivilityJohn McCain falls short of the standard he set by impugning Barack Obama's motives.
Saturday, July 26, 2008; A14
POLITICIANS SAY a lot of things in the heat of campaigns that they end up regretting -- or ought to regret. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, had one of those unfortunate moments the other day, when he charged that his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, "would rather lose the war to win a political campaign."
Having said this once, been criticized and had a chance to think it over, Mr. McCain chose to repeat it. "He would rather lose a war than lose a campaign," Mr. McCain told the Columbus Dispatch. "Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
Mr. McCain's disagreement with Mr. Obama is as heartfelt as it is important. We, too, have concerns about the dangerous implications of Mr. Obama's insistence on withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 16 months regardless of conditions there. We, too, fault Mr. Obama's unwillingness to acknowledge his mistake in predicting that the surge would fail. But Mr. McCain needn't impute motives to make his points. It's one thing to say Mr. Obama is wrong. It's another to accuse him of putting political self-interest over country. This is not the "politics of civility" that Mr. McCain was promising as recently as last month.
"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day," Mr. McCain wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama proposing weekly town hall meetings. With these latest comments, Mr. McCain falls short of the standards he set out.
Failing in CivilityJohn McCain falls short of the standard he set by impugning Barack Obama's motives.
Saturday, July 26, 2008; A14
POLITICIANS SAY a lot of things in the heat of campaigns that they end up regretting -- or ought to regret. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, had one of those unfortunate moments the other day, when he charged that his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, "would rather lose the war to win a political campaign."
Having said this once, been criticized and had a chance to think it over, Mr. McCain chose to repeat it. "He would rather lose a war than lose a campaign," Mr. McCain told the Columbus Dispatch. "Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
Mr. McCain's disagreement with Mr. Obama is as heartfelt as it is important. We, too, have concerns about the dangerous implications of Mr. Obama's insistence on withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 16 months regardless of conditions there. We, too, fault Mr. Obama's unwillingness to acknowledge his mistake in predicting that the surge would fail. But Mr. McCain needn't impute motives to make his points. It's one thing to say Mr. Obama is wrong. It's another to accuse him of putting political self-interest over country. This is not the "politics of civility" that Mr. McCain was promising as recently as last month.
"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day," Mr. McCain wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama proposing weekly town hall meetings. With these latest comments, Mr. McCain falls short of the standards he set out.
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Lies Just Keep On Coming . . .
A War Room report in Salon today provides the latest inaccuracies propogated by the McCain: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/25/mccain_memo/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room. What recent weeks have shown is that the only way Republicans can argue for their failed policies is through false innuendo and outright lies. McCain has shown a willingness to participate in this political Realpolitik with great aplomb, though with little accuity to date. One wonders if the integrity of the candidate will ever be fully explored in a popular press that appears enamored by another politician whose words have very little to do with his actions; or even his words from a few years, or even days, ago.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
McCain the Cynic
Obama emerged as a different kind of candidate, one that could transcend the politics of the past by both overcoming the battles of the 60s and by bringing a more positive face to politics. McCain and the media seem to want to make sure that doesn't happen. As an article in Slate argues today (http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2195762), McCain is attacking indiscrimately and, quite often, based on misleading or downright false information.
Cynicism has dominated American politics since Reagan (and really Nixon, with a potential Carter lacuna, depending on your perspective). Rather than attempting to address the real problems of this country, attack ads, false promises and playing on a lack of hope in the possibility of change have dominated. People are inspired by those that promise change, but they are more worried about the possibility change could actually occur.
The media seems to be more receptive to this paradox than the average citizen. When Nader started to gain a following, they ignored him or offered short stories that discounted his candidacy. When Dean garnered a massive popular following, they took him down with a decontextualized video clip that ensured a milquetoast candidate they decided to destroy anyway. Four years earlier, when Gore started talking like a populist against the big corporations and for the people; the press played up the "lying" motif and allowed the race to be close enough to be stolen. And now they appear to be doing it again. Articles about Obama always include McCain's critique, no matter how absurd -- generally without any clarification or reference back to the facts. I remember a similar theme a few years ago, in the build up to a war.
Cynicism has dominated American politics since Reagan (and really Nixon, with a potential Carter lacuna, depending on your perspective). Rather than attempting to address the real problems of this country, attack ads, false promises and playing on a lack of hope in the possibility of change have dominated. People are inspired by those that promise change, but they are more worried about the possibility change could actually occur.
The media seems to be more receptive to this paradox than the average citizen. When Nader started to gain a following, they ignored him or offered short stories that discounted his candidacy. When Dean garnered a massive popular following, they took him down with a decontextualized video clip that ensured a milquetoast candidate they decided to destroy anyway. Four years earlier, when Gore started talking like a populist against the big corporations and for the people; the press played up the "lying" motif and allowed the race to be close enough to be stolen. And now they appear to be doing it again. Articles about Obama always include McCain's critique, no matter how absurd -- generally without any clarification or reference back to the facts. I remember a similar theme a few years ago, in the build up to a war.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
McCain's Campaign of Lies Keeps on Trucking
From the New York Times this morning:
“Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Mr. McCain replied, adding that the Hussein government had also violated human rights. He then quickly shifted to the need to persevere, saying he expected attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq “so they can erode support for the al-Maliki government” during the American election campaign.
“We will come home with honor and victory, and it will be dictated by facts on the ground,” he continued. “We have succeeded, and I am confident we will win victory, and that is all contingent on our commitment to making sure we withdraw according to conditions on the ground.”
In a speech at a fund-raising luncheon in Detroit, Mr. McCain also implicitly criticized Mr. Obama in suggesting that his trip to Iraq — the schedule for which remains undisclosed, partly for security reasons — might be at hand.
“I am sure,” Mr. McCain added, “that Senator Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would have encountered before we started the surge.”
The McCain campaign also infuriated the Obama camp with the new advertisement, which accused Mr. Obama of “voting against funding our troops” and said he was abandoning his original positions on the war “to help himself become president.”
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, described the ad as “patently misleading,” and campaign officials issued a phrase-by-phrase rebuttal.
Those salvos were preceded by an interview, published Friday in The Kansas City Star, in which Mr. McCain suggested that Mr. Obama might be a socialist. At a campaign event in Kansas City on Thursday, Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of having the “most extreme” voting record in the Senate. When The Star asked about the comment, he said Mr. Obama had taken positions “more to the left than the announced socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”
The reporter then asked Mr. McCain if he thought Mr. Obama himself was a socialist. “I don’t know,” Mr. McCain answered. “All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”
McCain's growing desperation seems to go against everything he once stood for. While the press continues to focus on whatever he or other Republicans say about Obama, they appear to be missing the big story of this election -- which is the complete disavowal of everything McCain claims to stand for on a daily basis.
As I have discussed in detail below, he has completely retrenched on campaign finance reform. He has all but eliminated any of the heterodoxy that once made him a "renegade," at least in conservative and McAuliff-style liberal camps. He claimed he wanted a civil election about the issues, and has since done nothing but offer one lie or attack after another against Obama. But this is just getting absurd. The same day Graham quits the campaign, he tells us that all respected intelligence in the world said Hussein had WMDs, when that is far from the truth, even in this country. He claims Obama is a socialist, when it is clear his positions are so far removed from that ideology it is beyond preposterous, and he demands that Obama go to Iraq and then criticizes him incessantly when he does. Let's hope the press begins to at least cover this "flip flopping" dirty politcal gambit that appears to be McCain's only hope of victory.
On a lighter note, the EPA just lowered the value of a human from slightly over $8 million to around $7.2 million. This is good news for big business and those who think corporate profitability will be hurt if we actually make decisions that benefit humanity. Thank God for that move as inflation rises and the cost of actually keeping Americans above the poverty line increases dramatically.
“Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Mr. McCain replied, adding that the Hussein government had also violated human rights. He then quickly shifted to the need to persevere, saying he expected attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq “so they can erode support for the al-Maliki government” during the American election campaign.
“We will come home with honor and victory, and it will be dictated by facts on the ground,” he continued. “We have succeeded, and I am confident we will win victory, and that is all contingent on our commitment to making sure we withdraw according to conditions on the ground.”
In a speech at a fund-raising luncheon in Detroit, Mr. McCain also implicitly criticized Mr. Obama in suggesting that his trip to Iraq — the schedule for which remains undisclosed, partly for security reasons — might be at hand.
“I am sure,” Mr. McCain added, “that Senator Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would have encountered before we started the surge.”
The McCain campaign also infuriated the Obama camp with the new advertisement, which accused Mr. Obama of “voting against funding our troops” and said he was abandoning his original positions on the war “to help himself become president.”
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, described the ad as “patently misleading,” and campaign officials issued a phrase-by-phrase rebuttal.
Those salvos were preceded by an interview, published Friday in The Kansas City Star, in which Mr. McCain suggested that Mr. Obama might be a socialist. At a campaign event in Kansas City on Thursday, Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of having the “most extreme” voting record in the Senate. When The Star asked about the comment, he said Mr. Obama had taken positions “more to the left than the announced socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”
The reporter then asked Mr. McCain if he thought Mr. Obama himself was a socialist. “I don’t know,” Mr. McCain answered. “All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”
McCain's growing desperation seems to go against everything he once stood for. While the press continues to focus on whatever he or other Republicans say about Obama, they appear to be missing the big story of this election -- which is the complete disavowal of everything McCain claims to stand for on a daily basis.
As I have discussed in detail below, he has completely retrenched on campaign finance reform. He has all but eliminated any of the heterodoxy that once made him a "renegade," at least in conservative and McAuliff-style liberal camps. He claimed he wanted a civil election about the issues, and has since done nothing but offer one lie or attack after another against Obama. But this is just getting absurd. The same day Graham quits the campaign, he tells us that all respected intelligence in the world said Hussein had WMDs, when that is far from the truth, even in this country. He claims Obama is a socialist, when it is clear his positions are so far removed from that ideology it is beyond preposterous, and he demands that Obama go to Iraq and then criticizes him incessantly when he does. Let's hope the press begins to at least cover this "flip flopping" dirty politcal gambit that appears to be McCain's only hope of victory.
On a lighter note, the EPA just lowered the value of a human from slightly over $8 million to around $7.2 million. This is good news for big business and those who think corporate profitability will be hurt if we actually make decisions that benefit humanity. Thank God for that move as inflation rises and the cost of actually keeping Americans above the poverty line increases dramatically.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Liberal Media?
It seems like the "liberal" media is at it again. Jonathan Chait from The New Republic has an article today that seems to discount all of McCain's shortcomings, telling us he still likes him and at least he'd be better than Bush: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5cb3eef3-11b5-4ab2-baf4-f5f78b26a889. The New Yorker cover that is causing a major imbroglio has left the actual story uncovered. It covers his early years in Chicago politics from what can best be described as an "uppity negro" narrative, as if only a Black politican would stoop to culling his contacts carefully, making strategic decisions about his friends and enemies, taking advantage of opportunities to advance, and worst of all, being ambitious!
As with 2000 and 2004, it appears the "liberal" media is just a cover for an increasingly conservative shift that has been going on for some time now. In 1999, Pew showed this shift empirically with an extensive survey that found newsmen and women were more liberal than the public socially but more conservative economically and on foreign policy. We have seen the effects of this in the last two election cycles and it appears to be happening again. After the original love affair with Obama, it now appears the media has turned against him and is ready to assassinate his unseemly amibition by ensuring they help elect the more "likable" guy again. The problem this time is the facade that is McCain. Much like Bush, he admits he has little real knowledge of foreign affairs or the economy. He has internal fighting in his campaign between the tax cutters and the budget balancers. He is the true flip-flopper in the race, in an almost unprecedented ideological transformation that appears to have little to do with his true beliefs and more to do with electability. And on the issues most important to the country -- taxes, economic stimulus, regulation, Iraq and Iran and many social issues -- he appears to be walking hand in hand with a President who has the lowest approval rating in history.
Since McCain cannot really win on the issues, the only way to win is to return to the Rovian strategies of the past -- and he already seems to be moving with great celerity in that direction. Will the media challenge him, or allow the big lie to move this country further down the road of its internal and external decline? Obama better come up with some way to divert their attention or we might see another late season surprise.
As with 2000 and 2004, it appears the "liberal" media is just a cover for an increasingly conservative shift that has been going on for some time now. In 1999, Pew showed this shift empirically with an extensive survey that found newsmen and women were more liberal than the public socially but more conservative economically and on foreign policy. We have seen the effects of this in the last two election cycles and it appears to be happening again. After the original love affair with Obama, it now appears the media has turned against him and is ready to assassinate his unseemly amibition by ensuring they help elect the more "likable" guy again. The problem this time is the facade that is McCain. Much like Bush, he admits he has little real knowledge of foreign affairs or the economy. He has internal fighting in his campaign between the tax cutters and the budget balancers. He is the true flip-flopper in the race, in an almost unprecedented ideological transformation that appears to have little to do with his true beliefs and more to do with electability. And on the issues most important to the country -- taxes, economic stimulus, regulation, Iraq and Iran and many social issues -- he appears to be walking hand in hand with a President who has the lowest approval rating in history.
Since McCain cannot really win on the issues, the only way to win is to return to the Rovian strategies of the past -- and he already seems to be moving with great celerity in that direction. Will the media challenge him, or allow the big lie to move this country further down the road of its internal and external decline? Obama better come up with some way to divert their attention or we might see another late season surprise.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Has the Left Lost It's Sense of Humor
The New Yorker cover has certainly caused an uproar in liberal camps in the past few days, based largely on two related trends in liberal/left camps. The first is an intractable elitism based on the premise that the right is full of dolts and bufoons who are senseless cogs in the Republican machine. While there is obviously some truth in that, I think it is exactly this elitism that has spurned a change in who the "elites" are in this country -- namely liberals. Thomas Franks has outlined this trend quite nicely in What's the Matter With Kansas? but one of the reasons the strategy is so effective is because many liberals and leftists are, in fact, elitists. If the left wants to turn this around they need to start respecting "Average" Americans, and stop assuming their ethical choices are based on some innate moral superiority, rather than what they really are -- a choice (which I support). Ethics must be fought over and require more than guilt and calls for responsibility; they require a sound and compelling argument for why those ethics are preferable and how they will benefit America and the world (including the individuals you are trying to persuade).
The second issue is covered in a Salon article today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/07/15/new_yorker_cartoon/print.html. It talks about the collapsing humor on the left, brought on by a misappropriated self-righteousness and a penchant for humorlessness in all things. Where is the left that once gave us Abby Hoffman, the Chicago 7, Woody Allen, Millionaires for Bush and the like? Liberals take themselves too seriously and fall into the trap of political correctness run amok. Someone is offended by just about any political statement, but it's time for some unity on the left to ensure that we take advantage of a great opportunity to end the near junta on conservative presidents (I largely include Clinton in this camp). I'm not sure why Hillary Clinton supporters are continuing their absurd call for the unfairness of the process. They lost the delegate race and the popular vote race (unless we count a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and a state where Obama never campaigned). Liberals have to find a way to inject some joy and excitement back into their politics and find an affirmative message to offer the public -- sort of along the lines of what Obama is doing now. The Bernie Mac incident, while his comments were certainly offensive, just shows how self-censorship dominates the left and makes it impossible to talk about anything.
Anyway, that's my thought for the day.
The second issue is covered in a Salon article today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/07/15/new_yorker_cartoon/print.html. It talks about the collapsing humor on the left, brought on by a misappropriated self-righteousness and a penchant for humorlessness in all things. Where is the left that once gave us Abby Hoffman, the Chicago 7, Woody Allen, Millionaires for Bush and the like? Liberals take themselves too seriously and fall into the trap of political correctness run amok. Someone is offended by just about any political statement, but it's time for some unity on the left to ensure that we take advantage of a great opportunity to end the near junta on conservative presidents (I largely include Clinton in this camp). I'm not sure why Hillary Clinton supporters are continuing their absurd call for the unfairness of the process. They lost the delegate race and the popular vote race (unless we count a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and a state where Obama never campaigned). Liberals have to find a way to inject some joy and excitement back into their politics and find an affirmative message to offer the public -- sort of along the lines of what Obama is doing now. The Bernie Mac incident, while his comments were certainly offensive, just shows how self-censorship dominates the left and makes it impossible to talk about anything.
Anyway, that's my thought for the day.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hillary Haters?
Hillary Clinton has certainly been the recipient of a volume of hate and vitriol far beyond anything she ever warranted throughout her public career. And yet now one wonders if she and her many followers are not taking their resentment at the potential passing of the torch to the next generation as a call to arms to hand another election to a Republican candidate?
I recieved the press release below over the weekend, and was reminded of Nader's run 8 years ago. Nader ran to challenge a Democratic party, that under Clinton and his triangulation strategy, had moved too far to the right. He had an ideological position and a strong critique that was at the foundation of his platform. He emboldened young people across the country to engage in politics and arguably pushed Gore to the left in the Fall of that year. Yet at the end, he decided to campaign hard in the very states that very the closest (including Florida). Here many parted ways with him (including Michael Moore) and it can fairly be said that Nader was ONE reason among many for Theft 2000.
Are Clinton backers really willing to play a similar role this year? Aren't the differences between Obama and McCain rather profound at this point (e.g., taxes, abortion, Iraq, Iran, campaign finance reform, etc.)? Are the differences between Hillary and Obama really so large that it demands this effort to undermine their own candidate? Was the process really unfair? And can we honestly consider Hillary as a champion of working class America and progressive values?
I certainly hope this growing collective comes to their senses, before we hear the mantra four more years ringing in our ears as America continues its internal and external collapse.
Spokespersons – Just Say No Deal:West Coast:Robin Carlson HillaryGrassRootsCampaign.com (206) 289-0005Thuc Nguyen GoPumaParty.comEast Coast:Will Bower PUMA (202) 365-2536Cristi Adkins Clintons4McCain.comDiane Mantouvalos HireHeels.comJune 18, 2008
MEDIA ALERT Is Obama Pulling The "Head-Scarf" Over Our Eyes?
Just Say No Deal Coalition Says, "We Won't Blindly Follow!"
- Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide -JustSayNoDeal.com, reacts to the scene on Monday night in Detroit's Joe Louis Arena when two young women wearing religious headscarfs were not permitted to sit in "special seating" behind the podium stage.While the Just Say Now Deal Coalition acknowledges that the Obama Campaign has a right to orchestrate their public events as they see fit, the Coalition questions whether Senator Obama's well-publicized and branded platform of a "new kind of politics" represents bona fide change or merely a brilliantly executed marketing campaign.The events in Detroit earlier this week represent yet another reason why the Just Say No Deal Coalition rejects the Democratic Party's arrogant mandate. Its members have all declared their decision to not "fall in line" behind the presumptive nominee.In operation just over two hundred hours, the Just Say No Deal Coalition is growing exponentially, from its core group of twenty organizations to an estimated two hundred. Concerned citizens continue to break their silence to express their dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Democratic Party and its apparent short-circuiting of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal Coalition's online portal offers those voters a chance to reclaim their voices and the power to Just Say No Deal! The Coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.
I recieved the press release below over the weekend, and was reminded of Nader's run 8 years ago. Nader ran to challenge a Democratic party, that under Clinton and his triangulation strategy, had moved too far to the right. He had an ideological position and a strong critique that was at the foundation of his platform. He emboldened young people across the country to engage in politics and arguably pushed Gore to the left in the Fall of that year. Yet at the end, he decided to campaign hard in the very states that very the closest (including Florida). Here many parted ways with him (including Michael Moore) and it can fairly be said that Nader was ONE reason among many for Theft 2000.
Are Clinton backers really willing to play a similar role this year? Aren't the differences between Obama and McCain rather profound at this point (e.g., taxes, abortion, Iraq, Iran, campaign finance reform, etc.)? Are the differences between Hillary and Obama really so large that it demands this effort to undermine their own candidate? Was the process really unfair? And can we honestly consider Hillary as a champion of working class America and progressive values?
I certainly hope this growing collective comes to their senses, before we hear the mantra four more years ringing in our ears as America continues its internal and external collapse.
Spokespersons – Just Say No Deal:West Coast:Robin Carlson HillaryGrassRootsCampaign.com (206) 289-0005Thuc Nguyen GoPumaParty.comEast Coast:Will Bower PUMA (202) 365-2536Cristi Adkins Clintons4McCain.comDiane Mantouvalos HireHeels.comJune 18, 2008
MEDIA ALERT Is Obama Pulling The "Head-Scarf" Over Our Eyes?
Just Say No Deal Coalition Says, "We Won't Blindly Follow!"
- Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide -JustSayNoDeal.com, reacts to the scene on Monday night in Detroit's Joe Louis Arena when two young women wearing religious headscarfs were not permitted to sit in "special seating" behind the podium stage.While the Just Say Now Deal Coalition acknowledges that the Obama Campaign has a right to orchestrate their public events as they see fit, the Coalition questions whether Senator Obama's well-publicized and branded platform of a "new kind of politics" represents bona fide change or merely a brilliantly executed marketing campaign.The events in Detroit earlier this week represent yet another reason why the Just Say No Deal Coalition rejects the Democratic Party's arrogant mandate. Its members have all declared their decision to not "fall in line" behind the presumptive nominee.In operation just over two hundred hours, the Just Say No Deal Coalition is growing exponentially, from its core group of twenty organizations to an estimated two hundred. Concerned citizens continue to break their silence to express their dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Democratic Party and its apparent short-circuiting of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal Coalition's online portal offers those voters a chance to reclaim their voices and the power to Just Say No Deal! The Coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Post-Ideology?
Do we really live in a post-ideological time? Is there such a thing as a post-ideological candidate? An article in the New Republic today argues over the merits of a Bloomberg VP slot for either candidate (ulitmately deciding he would be good for neither): http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=cc97b3b7-7e4a-44cf-901c-bf1e98e83e46. The first reader comment to the article is by a Bloomberg employee Jeb who disagrees with the author and argues "He is post ideological." Has Bloomberg really transcended ideology? Has McCain? Has even Obama, who does seem to offer the best hope for moving beyond the partisan warfare of the baby boomers?
I think there is a growing belief that we can escape the ideological battles of the past, simply by accepting the new world order. Nixon said "we are all Keynesians now." The post-ideological platform seems to be around accepting the new world order of neoliberalism without dissent, and simply working to tinker with a system that puts far too much faith in markets and far too little in government intervention. Neoliberalism believes in privatization, deregulation, reduced taxation and, really, the expansion of the market ethos to every aspect of governance.
Let's start with Bloomberg. Blommberg first appeared as a Democrat, then became a Republican to make it easier to win the mayorship, then became an independent as he contemplated a run for president. But does that mean he holds no political opinions? Or that they teater vicariously between the two poles of partisan difference? Bloomberg appears to be that classic American figure, fiscally conservative (with some slippage) and culturally liberal. Is this really post-ideological, or is it the middle that has been fought over for forty years now (the very triangulation of Clinton)? Bloomberg, in many ways, appears to be the sort of dictatorial liberal that just wants to form the world to his specifications. He has taken over the City schools to little positive effect. He has faltered on the World Trade Center rebuilding. His traffic proposal flopped. And he has introduced smoke-free bars and restaurants (probably good) and policed trans fats out of our lives. He has also underseen a further decline in crime and a booming economy. But at what cost? Manhattan is now a middle class city, losing a lot of its edge and any affordible housing. It is now largely populated by finance types, with the artists pushed to the outer boroughs.
The real point is that being a technocrat and financially responsible should not place one in a post-ideological position. There is no such thing in a country where corporations wield incredible influence over government, the presidency is accumulating power like never before and the income and wealth gaps continue to grow as the richest country in the world sees growing poverty and a middle-class whose quality of life is declining. Maybe we need a post-partisan president who actually escapes the hold of the DLC and Clintonism and has the political will to take on the real challenges facing the country today, outside the new paradigm of tax cuts, small government and an unwillingness to talk about race or class. Obama could be this president, but this will not make him "post" ideological. It will simply mean stepping outside the traps of the present and recognizing that the issues of the past have not been solved, but need new solutions to move forward.
Ideology is inescapable. Whether the old ideologies of conservativism and liberalism have lost their appeal in American politics at the moment (which appears untrue given the current campaign rhetoric on right and left), does not undermine the continuing battle over ideas and who the government will serve. Democratic revival is an ideological position, and one with great appeal. The last thing we need right now is someone who trascends partisan politics simply by moving toward the middle. Instead it appears to me we need someone who can transcend the battles of the past and start a national dialogue on the real problems facing America today and ways we can work collectively to address them. At the center of this battle are the age old problems of the power of the elites and the interests of the common good.
I think there is a growing belief that we can escape the ideological battles of the past, simply by accepting the new world order. Nixon said "we are all Keynesians now." The post-ideological platform seems to be around accepting the new world order of neoliberalism without dissent, and simply working to tinker with a system that puts far too much faith in markets and far too little in government intervention. Neoliberalism believes in privatization, deregulation, reduced taxation and, really, the expansion of the market ethos to every aspect of governance.
Let's start with Bloomberg. Blommberg first appeared as a Democrat, then became a Republican to make it easier to win the mayorship, then became an independent as he contemplated a run for president. But does that mean he holds no political opinions? Or that they teater vicariously between the two poles of partisan difference? Bloomberg appears to be that classic American figure, fiscally conservative (with some slippage) and culturally liberal. Is this really post-ideological, or is it the middle that has been fought over for forty years now (the very triangulation of Clinton)? Bloomberg, in many ways, appears to be the sort of dictatorial liberal that just wants to form the world to his specifications. He has taken over the City schools to little positive effect. He has faltered on the World Trade Center rebuilding. His traffic proposal flopped. And he has introduced smoke-free bars and restaurants (probably good) and policed trans fats out of our lives. He has also underseen a further decline in crime and a booming economy. But at what cost? Manhattan is now a middle class city, losing a lot of its edge and any affordible housing. It is now largely populated by finance types, with the artists pushed to the outer boroughs.
The real point is that being a technocrat and financially responsible should not place one in a post-ideological position. There is no such thing in a country where corporations wield incredible influence over government, the presidency is accumulating power like never before and the income and wealth gaps continue to grow as the richest country in the world sees growing poverty and a middle-class whose quality of life is declining. Maybe we need a post-partisan president who actually escapes the hold of the DLC and Clintonism and has the political will to take on the real challenges facing the country today, outside the new paradigm of tax cuts, small government and an unwillingness to talk about race or class. Obama could be this president, but this will not make him "post" ideological. It will simply mean stepping outside the traps of the present and recognizing that the issues of the past have not been solved, but need new solutions to move forward.
Ideology is inescapable. Whether the old ideologies of conservativism and liberalism have lost their appeal in American politics at the moment (which appears untrue given the current campaign rhetoric on right and left), does not undermine the continuing battle over ideas and who the government will serve. Democratic revival is an ideological position, and one with great appeal. The last thing we need right now is someone who trascends partisan politics simply by moving toward the middle. Instead it appears to me we need someone who can transcend the battles of the past and start a national dialogue on the real problems facing America today and ways we can work collectively to address them. At the center of this battle are the age old problems of the power of the elites and the interests of the common good.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
McCainonomics
A New York Times article today asks McCain to be more forthcoming on the real cost of his tax plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/business/18leonhardt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print. Two things he wants to do that could be very damaging to the country and increase the deficit substantially are to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Each of these will cost the federal government substantial amounts of revenue and again give most of the benefit to the wealthy. In a country where the income gap continues to rise and the idea of the segmented labor market (in which two labor markets exist: one for the elites and another for everyone else) will worsen.
As the U.S. economy continues to suffer from short term trouble and long-term peril, one wonders how this sort of policy irresponsibility can go on. Isn't it time to seriously question tax policy in America? The rich are getting richer and the super rich are not holding up their end of the economy. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. Under Carter it was still 70%. Today it is 35%. How can we justify this as the deficit soars and the quality of life of the average American continues to decline? The only thing keeping federal and state budgets solvent is a dramatic increase in consumption (otherwise known as regressive) taxes. In other words, the burden of taxation has moved from the upper class to the middle and working class, by increasing things like tolls, sales tax, user taxes and other taxes on consumption. This is how Republicans like it.
Will the American people (and the media) start to really cover this issue and stop assuming they will themselves one day be rich and thus support irresponsible tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy? One hopes a reasoned debate occurs on taxes and the irresponsibility of McCain in attempting to continue the policy of tax cuts for the rich, at a time when what we really need is a more fair distribution of income and wealth to keep the country economically strong and socially viable for the long run.
As the U.S. economy continues to suffer from short term trouble and long-term peril, one wonders how this sort of policy irresponsibility can go on. Isn't it time to seriously question tax policy in America? The rich are getting richer and the super rich are not holding up their end of the economy. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. Under Carter it was still 70%. Today it is 35%. How can we justify this as the deficit soars and the quality of life of the average American continues to decline? The only thing keeping federal and state budgets solvent is a dramatic increase in consumption (otherwise known as regressive) taxes. In other words, the burden of taxation has moved from the upper class to the middle and working class, by increasing things like tolls, sales tax, user taxes and other taxes on consumption. This is how Republicans like it.
Will the American people (and the media) start to really cover this issue and stop assuming they will themselves one day be rich and thus support irresponsible tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy? One hopes a reasoned debate occurs on taxes and the irresponsibility of McCain in attempting to continue the policy of tax cuts for the rich, at a time when what we really need is a more fair distribution of income and wealth to keep the country economically strong and socially viable for the long run.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Clinton and the Challenges of Feminism
A few days ago, the New York Times had an interesting article on potential sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print. I've been talking about this issue with my students and, ignoring for the moment the rather sleazy campaign that she sometimes ran, I do believe there is some truth in this claim.
It appears that Democrats are more comfortable with a Black man than a woman candidate for president. This is unfortunate. And the claims by the campaign of media bias seem fair though maybe not balanced. The difficult aspect of deconstructing the negative coverage is disentangling the general dislike for the Clintons that has built over the past almost twenty years from the issue of gender. While Clinton certainly received a lot of negative press, it is unclear if this is related more to her relationship to her husband and past as first lady or a general discomfort with a female Commander in Chief.
The bigger issue, however, remains -- which seems to me to be the conundrum of running for office as a woman. On the one hand, it would seem you would get more votes being more attractive and potentially benefit from your appeal as fitting certain feminine stereotypes (that while essentializing by their nature) voters might prefer over the bellicose, masculine, white male norm. And yet there is also the expectation that you fit into the traditional white, male macho role. Clinton seemed to bring a careful balance of the two, though clearly veering closer to the masculine requirements of the job. By taking this tact, she clearly turned off many who are uncomfortable with a woman who appears too masculine/macho. The press often derided or assailed her for her clothing, her demeanor or her tough tactics (while perfectly okay for Rove, McCain and the male white club in general). So how masculine could Clinton be without suffering from the press' derision and mainstream male discomfort (to put it nicely)? How feminine could she be without losing many voters and the press to our antiquated fear of women with power? Where does the balance lie? One wonders if it yet exists as a realistic formation in American politics, where sexism does in fact appear to still be rampant. It is an issue that I believe should (and will outside the mainstream media) be studied in great detail.
It appears that Democrats are more comfortable with a Black man than a woman candidate for president. This is unfortunate. And the claims by the campaign of media bias seem fair though maybe not balanced. The difficult aspect of deconstructing the negative coverage is disentangling the general dislike for the Clintons that has built over the past almost twenty years from the issue of gender. While Clinton certainly received a lot of negative press, it is unclear if this is related more to her relationship to her husband and past as first lady or a general discomfort with a female Commander in Chief.
The bigger issue, however, remains -- which seems to me to be the conundrum of running for office as a woman. On the one hand, it would seem you would get more votes being more attractive and potentially benefit from your appeal as fitting certain feminine stereotypes (that while essentializing by their nature) voters might prefer over the bellicose, masculine, white male norm. And yet there is also the expectation that you fit into the traditional white, male macho role. Clinton seemed to bring a careful balance of the two, though clearly veering closer to the masculine requirements of the job. By taking this tact, she clearly turned off many who are uncomfortable with a woman who appears too masculine/macho. The press often derided or assailed her for her clothing, her demeanor or her tough tactics (while perfectly okay for Rove, McCain and the male white club in general). So how masculine could Clinton be without suffering from the press' derision and mainstream male discomfort (to put it nicely)? How feminine could she be without losing many voters and the press to our antiquated fear of women with power? Where does the balance lie? One wonders if it yet exists as a realistic formation in American politics, where sexism does in fact appear to still be rampant. It is an issue that I believe should (and will outside the mainstream media) be studied in great detail.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Masculinity and the Right
Susan Faludi, of backlash fame, has an interesting piece in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15faludi.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. In it she argues that Republicans will again attempt to win the vote by being more manly than their opponents. With McCain, they certainly have a legitimate manly candidate, but the interesting aspect of this campaign is that Obama seems comfortable toeing the gender line and accessing his "feminine" qualities in public (with apologies to the essentializing aspect these analyses always engender).
The problem is the press will probably play along. No big surprise that Tucker Carlson, Don Imus and Scarborough are already using the tact, or that Newsweek is preening over McCain without any of the expected critique. But will the purportedly "neutral" press play along as well. Early signs are not good. The New York Times and Washington Post have already been quite critical of McCain and his many faults, inconsistencies and obvious hypocrisy on Campaign Finance Reform, but neither paper wins elections.
I'm back from a minor hiatus and hope to now contribute daily to watching the press, the campaign and hopefully the next step in moving beyond the power of the Republican machine to control the dialogue and win elections without any substantial dialogue on America and our future.
The problem is the press will probably play along. No big surprise that Tucker Carlson, Don Imus and Scarborough are already using the tact, or that Newsweek is preening over McCain without any of the expected critique. But will the purportedly "neutral" press play along as well. Early signs are not good. The New York Times and Washington Post have already been quite critical of McCain and his many faults, inconsistencies and obvious hypocrisy on Campaign Finance Reform, but neither paper wins elections.
I'm back from a minor hiatus and hope to now contribute daily to watching the press, the campaign and hopefully the next step in moving beyond the power of the Republican machine to control the dialogue and win elections without any substantial dialogue on America and our future.
Monday, May 12, 2008
TV Experts?
An article in the New York Times today http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/us/politics/12rove.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin, talks about the blurring line between political operatives and TV pundits. It centers on Karl Rove and his new role as an analyst for Fox News. While Democrats will certainly be reticent to accept advice like Obama spending less time on the campaign trail and more in the Senate, the larger question is whether the media in general has allowed partisan interests to move into the ostensibly "objective" world of journalism.
The larger question for this campaign, now that it appears that it is Obama v. McCain, is whether the media will provide equal scrutiny to both candidates or again offer a Republican an easier ride as they clearly did for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. While I don't want to waste time here arguing about the liberal bias of media (see Alterman, Chomsky, FAIR and Pew for evidence of this myth), it appears clear that the media generally likes McCain and that this has allowed him to skate by a number of near pratfalls to date. Going forward, will the media look into the fact that he appears to have broken his own campaign finance reform bill, has a untoward and maybe illegal relationship with an organization he started that appears to work as a non-profit surrogate for his campaigns, might have had an affair with a lobbyist associated with that organization, appears to have a hard time discerning between Shites and Sunnis, admits having limited foreign policy and economic knowledge and appears to have turned his back on his "renegade" past in securing the nomination and his base.
The biggest issue that concerns me is whether the media recognizes that at present McCain appears to be positioning himself as the "Bush Redux" candidate. After eight years of falling standards of living for the average American, shrinking of the Welfare State, regulation and environmental and consumer protection, a failed war in Iraq and the general decline of the U.S. in world opinion and power, one wonders if Americans really want four more years. Do we really want to make tax cuts permanent that will cut $2 trillion out of the federal budget while giving most of the benefits to the wealthiest Americans? Do we really want to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Does his bellicose tone toward Iran really help? Do we really want a president who would rather help investment bankers than Americans losing their homes?
My fear is that the media will follow the patterns of 2000 and 2004 and be much harder on the Democratic candidate than the Republican (see Pew and FAIR for statistical evidence of this). I fear that the fact that they like McCain and are unsure about Obama will color their coverage. I fear that racism and elitism may actually work to undermine Obama's candidacy with whatever absurd attacks the Right decides to employ. Most of all, I fear that the media will make this election into a circus and horse race, forgetting very substantive issues that separate these two candidates: corporate power, economics, the war in Iraq, the future of the supreme court, etc. The blogosphere will certainly push the media, as will organizations like Media Matters and Move On, but the ultimate question is whether the major and cable channels will uphold their position as the fourth estate of government, or again fall prey to ratings wars and infotainment.
It should be exciting to watch; which is one of the major problems!
The larger question for this campaign, now that it appears that it is Obama v. McCain, is whether the media will provide equal scrutiny to both candidates or again offer a Republican an easier ride as they clearly did for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. While I don't want to waste time here arguing about the liberal bias of media (see Alterman, Chomsky, FAIR and Pew for evidence of this myth), it appears clear that the media generally likes McCain and that this has allowed him to skate by a number of near pratfalls to date. Going forward, will the media look into the fact that he appears to have broken his own campaign finance reform bill, has a untoward and maybe illegal relationship with an organization he started that appears to work as a non-profit surrogate for his campaigns, might have had an affair with a lobbyist associated with that organization, appears to have a hard time discerning between Shites and Sunnis, admits having limited foreign policy and economic knowledge and appears to have turned his back on his "renegade" past in securing the nomination and his base.
The biggest issue that concerns me is whether the media recognizes that at present McCain appears to be positioning himself as the "Bush Redux" candidate. After eight years of falling standards of living for the average American, shrinking of the Welfare State, regulation and environmental and consumer protection, a failed war in Iraq and the general decline of the U.S. in world opinion and power, one wonders if Americans really want four more years. Do we really want to make tax cuts permanent that will cut $2 trillion out of the federal budget while giving most of the benefits to the wealthiest Americans? Do we really want to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Does his bellicose tone toward Iran really help? Do we really want a president who would rather help investment bankers than Americans losing their homes?
My fear is that the media will follow the patterns of 2000 and 2004 and be much harder on the Democratic candidate than the Republican (see Pew and FAIR for statistical evidence of this). I fear that the fact that they like McCain and are unsure about Obama will color their coverage. I fear that racism and elitism may actually work to undermine Obama's candidacy with whatever absurd attacks the Right decides to employ. Most of all, I fear that the media will make this election into a circus and horse race, forgetting very substantive issues that separate these two candidates: corporate power, economics, the war in Iraq, the future of the supreme court, etc. The blogosphere will certainly push the media, as will organizations like Media Matters and Move On, but the ultimate question is whether the major and cable channels will uphold their position as the fourth estate of government, or again fall prey to ratings wars and infotainment.
It should be exciting to watch; which is one of the major problems!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Presidency to the Highest Bidder!
John McCain, who continues to be portrayed as a maverick out to change campaign finance law, also continues to show a personal relativism on the matter that should be garnering more media coverage. The latest news is that the Republican National Committee plans to raise $120 million to support his candidacy. This comes on top of his breaking of his own campaign finance law and decision to opt out of the campaign finance system.
McCain's proposed tax cut (making the very Bush cuts he once voted against permanent) would according to a recent analysis by Gordon and Kaval (Washington Post, The Trail, March 23, 2008) cost $2 Trillion over the next decade and deliver 58% of the benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers and only 4% to the bottom 60%. They also question whether his health plan will actually help Americans attain high quality healthcare.
Yet McCain feels comfortable claiming that Obama is "out of touch" with the frustration of working class people in America. This sort of rhetoric continues to work in my mind largely because the media allows these attacks to go unchallenged and because they themselves are completely out of touch with working class America. While the media continues to talk about Obama's pastor, his race and his latest comments, it appears the real McCoy (I mean McCain) story stuffed in the back of the post deserves substantially more coverage.
Redux from yesterday: A poll by ABC News and the Post finds that the comments that were going to cost Obama the presidency and maybe even the democratic nomination have had little effect: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html?wpisrc=newsletter. Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania, is ahead in Indiana, is ahead in the poll in almost all categories except leadership (including electability), now leads Clinton in CA and other states she won, has more delegates, has won the popular vote and is close in the pledged superdelegates. But of course Clinton continuing to run a near-futile attempt at somehow coming out on top is good for democracy, as she attempts to destroy the probable democratic candidate.
McCain's proposed tax cut (making the very Bush cuts he once voted against permanent) would according to a recent analysis by Gordon and Kaval (Washington Post, The Trail, March 23, 2008) cost $2 Trillion over the next decade and deliver 58% of the benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers and only 4% to the bottom 60%. They also question whether his health plan will actually help Americans attain high quality healthcare.
Yet McCain feels comfortable claiming that Obama is "out of touch" with the frustration of working class people in America. This sort of rhetoric continues to work in my mind largely because the media allows these attacks to go unchallenged and because they themselves are completely out of touch with working class America. While the media continues to talk about Obama's pastor, his race and his latest comments, it appears the real McCoy (I mean McCain) story stuffed in the back of the post deserves substantially more coverage.
Redux from yesterday: A poll by ABC News and the Post finds that the comments that were going to cost Obama the presidency and maybe even the democratic nomination have had little effect: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html?wpisrc=newsletter. Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania, is ahead in Indiana, is ahead in the poll in almost all categories except leadership (including electability), now leads Clinton in CA and other states she won, has more delegates, has won the popular vote and is close in the pledged superdelegates. But of course Clinton continuing to run a near-futile attempt at somehow coming out on top is good for democracy, as she attempts to destroy the probable democratic candidate.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
What the Matter With Bitterness?
The New Republic has just put in their rather hefty two cents on the latest Obama imbruglio. John Judis (www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a) with little supporting evidence, claims that Obama has already essentially lost the general election and maybe the democratic nomination because of this comment. I think there are several problems with this article and this line of reasoning in general. For one, the press seems to have forgotten that Americans put the democrats in charge less than two years ago to end the war in Iraq. The only legitimate anti-war candidate is Obama and McCain, besides being at an age that could make some uneasy and essentially arguing for continuing most of the Bush policies of the past 8 years, is more bullish on Iraq and bellicose on Iran than his newfound hero (Bush; remember the guy who used dirty politics in South Carolina to capture the Republican nomination eight years ago).
I think Obama's charisma, his nonpareil speaking abilities and his ability to toe the line between his earned privelege and his modest background may actually connect with the white working class that may feel wedge issue politics is costing them too much these days: stagnant wages and growing unemployment, increasing income and wealth gaps, rampant political and economic corruption, sons and/or daughters stuck in Iraq or dead and the whole other host of concerns surrounding the failed policies of conservatives.
Obama's comments were right in line with Thomas Frank's book (as I said below) and the press did not lambast him for writing it. The real conceipt is for a senior editor at the New Republic to speak for the majority of people in the U.S. under the premise that the very things Obama is talking about is all that white working class people care about. This is not a cohesive, homogenized mass, but individuals who make decisions based on a number of factors -- unfortunately including gun control, abortion, faith and backlash political strategies. To allow Clinton to continue to use the ugly political strategies of the right as a last ditch effort to squeeze out the nomination shows the extent to which the media and even TNR have turned away from substance to cover politics in purely cynical terms. Hopefully the clarion call for hope and substance will subsume this cynicism outside the towers of our failing fourth estate.
I think Obama's charisma, his nonpareil speaking abilities and his ability to toe the line between his earned privelege and his modest background may actually connect with the white working class that may feel wedge issue politics is costing them too much these days: stagnant wages and growing unemployment, increasing income and wealth gaps, rampant political and economic corruption, sons and/or daughters stuck in Iraq or dead and the whole other host of concerns surrounding the failed policies of conservatives.
Obama's comments were right in line with Thomas Frank's book (as I said below) and the press did not lambast him for writing it. The real conceipt is for a senior editor at the New Republic to speak for the majority of people in the U.S. under the premise that the very things Obama is talking about is all that white working class people care about. This is not a cohesive, homogenized mass, but individuals who make decisions based on a number of factors -- unfortunately including gun control, abortion, faith and backlash political strategies. To allow Clinton to continue to use the ugly political strategies of the right as a last ditch effort to squeeze out the nomination shows the extent to which the media and even TNR have turned away from substance to cover politics in purely cynical terms. Hopefully the clarion call for hope and substance will subsume this cynicism outside the towers of our failing fourth estate.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Hillary Rove?
The strategy currently being employed by the Clintons bears a striking resemblance to the one used by Republicans from Reagan forward -- and particularly by Karl Rove. They have played the "race card" on several occasions, through their surrogates, claiming a Black man can't win the presidency. They have used erroneous arguments and facts to bolster their claim that Hillary is the better Democratic Candidate -- by mentioning the big states she has won, even as it is clear most if not all of those states will be won by Obama as well (and a recent poll found Obama ahead in California). The fact that Obama is winning in the smaller, more competitive states actually may benefit Dems in the general election if he can turn any of them over.
The latest attacks may be the most absurd. Obama's oft-repeated comment:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
appears to be a relatively accurate explanation for Republican victories in recent years and the general strategy employed during the conservative revolution -- namely playing on a backlash against the 60s, civil rights movement and feminism with a hearkening to an idyllic past when women were in the home, blacks were largely segregated from whites and hard work, religious virtue and community thrived, as a mechanism to win over working class voters who essentially acted against their own economic interests based on a series of wedge issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration and gay marriage that symbolized the cultural war for America's soul(see, for example, Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?). Yet Clinton has taken this comment (made in private) and turned it into a rallying cry for her turn to the right.
She now sounds like a gun-toting religious fanatic, two weeks after she denounced the radical comments of Obama's minister and close friend. And this all comes on top of the inaccurate comments the Clintons have made about Obamas record throughout the campaign (including that he supported the policies of Reagan, based on an absurd misreading of a point he made during that speech). It appears as if there is no line Hillary won't cross in her increasingly futile attempt to win the nomination by subverting the democratic process and counting on the superdelegates or voters in Florida, where Obama didn't even campaign.
The worst part of this ugly campaign, including the infamous "phone call" ad Republicans will probably use in the general election, is that Hillary Clinton appears to be willing to hand the election to McCain rather than show the slightest integrity or concern for the future of the country, if she doesn't run it. I hope the people of Pennsylvania and the remaining states see the facade that this campaign has become and end this caustic internecine war.
The latest attacks may be the most absurd. Obama's oft-repeated comment:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
appears to be a relatively accurate explanation for Republican victories in recent years and the general strategy employed during the conservative revolution -- namely playing on a backlash against the 60s, civil rights movement and feminism with a hearkening to an idyllic past when women were in the home, blacks were largely segregated from whites and hard work, religious virtue and community thrived, as a mechanism to win over working class voters who essentially acted against their own economic interests based on a series of wedge issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration and gay marriage that symbolized the cultural war for America's soul(see, for example, Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?). Yet Clinton has taken this comment (made in private) and turned it into a rallying cry for her turn to the right.
She now sounds like a gun-toting religious fanatic, two weeks after she denounced the radical comments of Obama's minister and close friend. And this all comes on top of the inaccurate comments the Clintons have made about Obamas record throughout the campaign (including that he supported the policies of Reagan, based on an absurd misreading of a point he made during that speech). It appears as if there is no line Hillary won't cross in her increasingly futile attempt to win the nomination by subverting the democratic process and counting on the superdelegates or voters in Florida, where Obama didn't even campaign.
The worst part of this ugly campaign, including the infamous "phone call" ad Republicans will probably use in the general election, is that Hillary Clinton appears to be willing to hand the election to McCain rather than show the slightest integrity or concern for the future of the country, if she doesn't run it. I hope the people of Pennsylvania and the remaining states see the facade that this campaign has become and end this caustic internecine war.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Clinton Comeback??
Last night was a saving grace for Clinton and the media has shifted its discourse overnight. However, early estimates show that she only cut into Obama's lead by 4 delegates. That means she needs to make up another 150 with only 611 left. More troubling is her turn to the negative; which appears to be a quadrennial Democratic habit to internally mar their own candidates. Last week, Clinton mocked Obama's message of hope and change -- showing her own cynicism and commitment to backing the status quo. This cynicism became even more apparent with her latest ads in Texas showing a child in bed and the old message of fear that seems to be all many Democrats have to offer.
As to McCain, I am very troubled by a tendency of the media and many democrats I know to assume he would govern from the middle. There was a point in his career when he was a renegade on some issues, but his current discourse seems to put him squarely in conservative quarters. To point:
1) He claims he will make Bush's tax cuts permanent, going against his own votes against those tax cuts at the time.
2) His position on Iraq seems almost delusional. He's happy to keep up there for a 100 years (in his own words) and continues to claim we are winning the "war."
3) After being a champion of campaign finance reform, he seems to have broken his own law to get extra money for his campaign at a crucial moment that all but guaranteed him the nomination.
4) He is essentially conservative on most social issues and will probably be in a position to elect a number of supreme court justices if he wins the election.
5) Conservatives will most likely unite behind him now and come out in large numbers, particularly if they face Hillary (or maybe even Obama, as a Black man). Democrats must be vigilant if they want to win what once looked like an easy victory.
One hopes democrats and independents will wake up to the facade that McCain is presenting to the public and recognize that there is more to leadership than a presumptive (and increasingly questionable) incantation to "integrity." One also hopes the media can put aside what has been a general reverence for Senator McCain to actually cover the issues and his questionable shift to conservatism in recent years. At least a boy can dream . . .
As to McCain, I am very troubled by a tendency of the media and many democrats I know to assume he would govern from the middle. There was a point in his career when he was a renegade on some issues, but his current discourse seems to put him squarely in conservative quarters. To point:
1) He claims he will make Bush's tax cuts permanent, going against his own votes against those tax cuts at the time.
2) His position on Iraq seems almost delusional. He's happy to keep up there for a 100 years (in his own words) and continues to claim we are winning the "war."
3) After being a champion of campaign finance reform, he seems to have broken his own law to get extra money for his campaign at a crucial moment that all but guaranteed him the nomination.
4) He is essentially conservative on most social issues and will probably be in a position to elect a number of supreme court justices if he wins the election.
5) Conservatives will most likely unite behind him now and come out in large numbers, particularly if they face Hillary (or maybe even Obama, as a Black man). Democrats must be vigilant if they want to win what once looked like an easy victory.
One hopes democrats and independents will wake up to the facade that McCain is presenting to the public and recognize that there is more to leadership than a presumptive (and increasingly questionable) incantation to "integrity." One also hopes the media can put aside what has been a general reverence for Senator McCain to actually cover the issues and his questionable shift to conservatism in recent years. At least a boy can dream . . .
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Take a Position, Any Position!
An article in the New York Times yesterday tells us that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and several other prominent Democrats plan to remain neutral throughout the rest of the primary process: www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203293177-6kNYj%20zNrKf7zieEzNtvEA&pagewanted=print While this may make sense as they do not want to make enemies with the potential candidate, it is somewhat troubling that timidity continues to rule the day so often with Democrats. Pelosi who was once considered too liberal to lead the Democrats in Congress has been largely ineffective and tended to give too much away to the President losing almost every battle she decides to fight. This seems emblematic of a party that can't seem to find a heart, or any consensus, on what it is they stand for and who they stand with. At least the Republicans wage battles over ideas and what their central ideological positions are. I think it's time for the Democrats to do the same (and not just debate electability and the fine nuances of specific issues in perpetuity).
Obama at least talks about changing the tone in Washington and challenging Democratic orthodoxy. Gore and Pelosi appear to me to be symptomatic of the problem with Democrats since Clinton (and earlier to be honest), which is a lack of resolve and integrity as regards their positions and platforms. I would love to hear a politician with the resolve to say "we need to raise taxes to deal with the deficit, etc." Gore, while since proving himself a man of integrity and principles, lost an election that he should have won in a landslide simply by running on the record he and Clinton amassassed over 8 years. Instead he couldn't decide if he was a new democrat, a populist or an alpha male on the prowl. In the debates, which he should have easily won, he first came off as a rapid dog in heat, then a timid lamb who couldn't find a substantive differences between Bush and himself then a populist who stood with the people against power.
Kerry suffered from similar problems after being anointed by the mainstream media, after they dismantled the candidacy of Howard Dean with a video clip taken completely out of context. Certainly Bush used dirty tactics, including the Swift Boat debacle the media failed to adequately covered, but Kerry never made it clear what he stood for and this is symptomatic of so much of a Democratic establishment that would rather not lose by failing to take any strong, potentially unpopular positions than to win by standing for something: and I mean anything!
Democrats have become like the left since the fall of capitalism -- in making their only position that of negation -- but they further have taken Republican cynicism as their calling: believing that winning at any costs trumps actually believing in something or fighting for it. I think this is why Obama has inspired so many and why the establishment is so scared of actually giving him a chance. I just hope all this talk of superdelegates and neutrality from up high doesn't end up as the latest wrong moves that have cost Democrats and this country for too long . . .
Obama at least talks about changing the tone in Washington and challenging Democratic orthodoxy. Gore and Pelosi appear to me to be symptomatic of the problem with Democrats since Clinton (and earlier to be honest), which is a lack of resolve and integrity as regards their positions and platforms. I would love to hear a politician with the resolve to say "we need to raise taxes to deal with the deficit, etc." Gore, while since proving himself a man of integrity and principles, lost an election that he should have won in a landslide simply by running on the record he and Clinton amassassed over 8 years. Instead he couldn't decide if he was a new democrat, a populist or an alpha male on the prowl. In the debates, which he should have easily won, he first came off as a rapid dog in heat, then a timid lamb who couldn't find a substantive differences between Bush and himself then a populist who stood with the people against power.
Kerry suffered from similar problems after being anointed by the mainstream media, after they dismantled the candidacy of Howard Dean with a video clip taken completely out of context. Certainly Bush used dirty tactics, including the Swift Boat debacle the media failed to adequately covered, but Kerry never made it clear what he stood for and this is symptomatic of so much of a Democratic establishment that would rather not lose by failing to take any strong, potentially unpopular positions than to win by standing for something: and I mean anything!
Democrats have become like the left since the fall of capitalism -- in making their only position that of negation -- but they further have taken Republican cynicism as their calling: believing that winning at any costs trumps actually believing in something or fighting for it. I think this is why Obama has inspired so many and why the establishment is so scared of actually giving him a chance. I just hope all this talk of superdelegates and neutrality from up high doesn't end up as the latest wrong moves that have cost Democrats and this country for too long . . .
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Election
As the election season heats up, I thought I would add my rather inconsequential two cents on a relatively daily basis; focused on the discourse and media coverage of the campaign. Today's New York Times op ed by the milquetoast David Brooks
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
seems rather reasonable on the surface. Yes Democrats are making promises they can't keep and will have tough decisions based on the rising deficit and faltering economy upon entering office (if we win). But, there is of course a solution that could help cut those deficits (which were surpluses when GWB entered office, lest us forget). It is simply to turn back the clock and, along with McCain in his original votes before moving right and trying to rewrite his personal history, get rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts that simply gave more money to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats should restore the inheritance aka "death" tax, close the loophole for hedge fund managers (who make in the tens and hundreds of millions and pay 15%) and return the system to its more progressive roots (we have essentially ended up with a de facto flat tax today). Of course, the "tax cut" tango must be challenged -- tax cut from the left, tax cut from the right, tax cut for a boom, tax cut for a bust -- and we might remember that there are alternative economic policies available to anyone with a little imagination or a history book that goes back over ten years. As the income gap continues to increase, our education system continues to fail us and the baby boomers shuffle towards retirement and old age someone better realize the times they are a-changing (again) and forge a new path . . .
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
seems rather reasonable on the surface. Yes Democrats are making promises they can't keep and will have tough decisions based on the rising deficit and faltering economy upon entering office (if we win). But, there is of course a solution that could help cut those deficits (which were surpluses when GWB entered office, lest us forget). It is simply to turn back the clock and, along with McCain in his original votes before moving right and trying to rewrite his personal history, get rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts that simply gave more money to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats should restore the inheritance aka "death" tax, close the loophole for hedge fund managers (who make in the tens and hundreds of millions and pay 15%) and return the system to its more progressive roots (we have essentially ended up with a de facto flat tax today). Of course, the "tax cut" tango must be challenged -- tax cut from the left, tax cut from the right, tax cut for a boom, tax cut for a bust -- and we might remember that there are alternative economic policies available to anyone with a little imagination or a history book that goes back over ten years. As the income gap continues to increase, our education system continues to fail us and the baby boomers shuffle towards retirement and old age someone better realize the times they are a-changing (again) and forge a new path . . .
Friday, April 11, 2003
Bush Announces New Plan to Cut Crime: Before It Happens
By Gina Tonic
BUTTE, Montana, April 11, 2003 – Expanding the preemptive strategy of the war to homeland security, the President and Attorney General today announced a bold new crime initiative. With the bill, the administration hopes to substantially reduce the crime rate by catching criminals before they act.
“Waiting for crimes to happen is waiting too long for crimes to happen,” the President said today after an Iraq War update and a long midday nap.
An unnamed administrative official told In Praise of Folly that Mr. Bush first thought of the idea after seeing the futuristic action film Minority Report. “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could do that now,” he was quoted as saying at the time. “Get these evildoers before they have the opportunity to do bad things to upstanding businessmen and women.”
“Now that we have seen the successful implementation of our plan to free the Iraqi people, I mean secure weapons of mass destruction, I mean free the Iraqi people, it is time to capitalize on the successful preemptive strike strategy.”
The central feature of the plan is a massive racial, religious and socioeconomic profiling plan that should weed out most of the potential criminals before they even consider the idea of committing a crime. “I am confident that we can implement this plan without hearing from those whiney civil liberties folks,” said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. “At least I hope so.”
The new law will be placed as a rider in the bill currently going through Congress to give full immunity to gun producers against those annoying lawsuits. “If we really want to fight crime in this country we need to arm all Americans. How else do we expect to protect ourselves?” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “We are also in the early planning stages of a training program that will allow citizens to strike preemptively against terrorists right here at home. We are calling the plan American Gun Owner Freedom.”
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Bush Clarifies Environmental Policy
By Pierre E. Stroika
NEW YORK, April 9, 2003 – In a move that should appease environmental groups and end two years of unyielding contentiousness, President Bush has clarified his environmental stance. Speaking to a group of his favorite corporate sponsors, the President explained “By allowing air pollution and our environment in general to continue to worsen, we can deal with one of the other persistent problems in America today, the exorbitant cost of health care for the aged.”
“By reducing life expectancy, we can abrogate [sic] the strain on Social Security and Medicare while increasing profits for corporations – making the lives of the young that much more satisfying before they die,” Mr. Bush continued.
The President believes that we could also help the economy by kicking out all those “tree-hugging hippies” that are constantly standing in the way of business interests. “I’m hoping to inseminate [sic] into Patriot Act II language that will allow us to excremate [sic] any American that thinks the environment is more important that the economy, or who puts their own health above the need of the country and its invaluable business leaders.”
“I’m satisfied,” said Greenpeace activist Summer Lane. “I wish he had just told us that in the first place instead of pretending that he wanted to help the environment by burning down all the trees, making pollution abatement voluntary and loosening restrictions.”
“Few can argue with the economic position put forward by the administration,” said Alan Greenspan. “Following the advice of Captain Spock, the needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few.”
Other groups also felt the honest approach was turning the tide in the debate. “He did say he was going to restore honesty and integrity to the office, and who can argue with him now. Clinton pretended he like the environment, and yet look at the meager amount he did,” said one non-profit director that wanted to remain anonymous.
Business leaders were also satisfied with the decision. “Listen, it will be much easier for us to explain how we see the world now. Why should we have to pretend to care when our mission is clearly just to maximize profits? It’s like some people have never even taken Economics 101,” said ex Adelphia CEO billionaire John Rigas from his prison cell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
