Thursday, February 25, 2010
ETHICS QUESTIONS ON PUNDIT-CANDIDATES
Questions have been raised for some time about the ethics of persons who move from a role as political candidates to doing network programs and political commentator roles, or the other way around. Questions are also raised about those news networks who are keeping future candidates “on staff.” One has heard this issue raised regularly in private conversations, although rarely on air among media people. There is something about these moves which just doesn’t seem right to a lot of people.
Now it appears that leadership of some other TV networks have joined with some professional journalists in questioning or outright condemning this practice.
Look at these names: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. These are three prominent names of past office holders and candidates for national office. Also Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich are all commonly mentioned as likely candidates for the republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race. And all three are under contract for commentary and programming with Fox News.
Another Fox political analyst, Angela McGlowan, recently left her pundit job at Fox to declare her candidacy for congress in Mississippi the next day. Along with those above, this appears unseemly.
“As long as they are still newsmakers, there is strong potential for conflict,” says Andy Schotz, who is chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists. He remarks that at the very least, this amounts to “an advantage for analysts and creates a perception of favoritism.” He does not say what else it does for the “news” network which so commonly follows such a practice, yet promotes itself as “fair and balanced.”
“It is a little awkward,” says David Bohrman, Washington Bureau Chief for CNN, adding that the networks employing such past and future candidates should realize that they are being taken advantage of by people who are posturing for election advantage. So, do we buy it here that Fox News is being used and manipulated by these candidates it purposely offers these lucrative, publicly visible positions, in front of the very distinct audience from whom they will be seeking basic support? Negative. From here it appears that they are in bed in a mutually beneficial back-scratching relationship.
None of CNN’s stable of political analysts and commentators are likely political candidates in 2010 or 2012. Pat Buchanan, a sometimes political candidate, has at times had limited roles on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and PBS, but he is an unlikely future candidate. Lou Dobbs, who left CNN and appears on Fox, has been rumored as a possible congressional candidate. When given an either/or choice, Chris Matthews chose to remain at MSNBC rather than become a candidate for the senate from Pennsylvania.
Fox News became a recent Washington joke when it promoted a Chris Wallace “exclusive interview” with Sarah Palin on Fox News Sunday. It should be rather easy to obtain “exclusives” with a person on your own payroll.
All this serves to highlight what an unholy alliance it is when journalism and politics become bedfellows.
Democracies in the history of western civilization have always depended upon “the fourth estate” to keep government honest or inform the people when government becomes corrupt, dishonest, or abusive of the citizens or the democratic process. Over the decades we have tolerated much from our press, and we have granted the press many privileges, because we have fiercely valued its independence from government.
While it is unseemly for even a single newspaper to engage in the unethical practices of news slanting, selective reporting, and outright political support of parties or candidates outside of its editorial and opinion pages, we have been more tolerant than we should be of those instances when this has happened. After all, this was only a single newspaper in a single city.
But we have learned how corrupting a monopolistic news source can be in states where one or two metropolitan papers control the information received by the people. When television came in around 1950, we had rules which prevented a major metro newspaper from owning a television station in the same news area. We also had rules against foreigners or foreign corporations owning television stations or networks.
But these rules have changed, and so has the level of involvement of news media in politics. The fairness doctrine was discarded, as were the limits on minutes per hour of commercials – much to our chagrin. Most such events, and the coming of Rupert Murdoch, occurred during the Reagan-Bush presidencies and the Gingrich dominated Congress. But that is a topic for another day.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
AKA The Militant Moderate
Now it appears that leadership of some other TV networks have joined with some professional journalists in questioning or outright condemning this practice.
Look at these names: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. These are three prominent names of past office holders and candidates for national office. Also Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich are all commonly mentioned as likely candidates for the republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race. And all three are under contract for commentary and programming with Fox News.
Another Fox political analyst, Angela McGlowan, recently left her pundit job at Fox to declare her candidacy for congress in Mississippi the next day. Along with those above, this appears unseemly.
“As long as they are still newsmakers, there is strong potential for conflict,” says Andy Schotz, who is chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists. He remarks that at the very least, this amounts to “an advantage for analysts and creates a perception of favoritism.” He does not say what else it does for the “news” network which so commonly follows such a practice, yet promotes itself as “fair and balanced.”
“It is a little awkward,” says David Bohrman, Washington Bureau Chief for CNN, adding that the networks employing such past and future candidates should realize that they are being taken advantage of by people who are posturing for election advantage. So, do we buy it here that Fox News is being used and manipulated by these candidates it purposely offers these lucrative, publicly visible positions, in front of the very distinct audience from whom they will be seeking basic support? Negative. From here it appears that they are in bed in a mutually beneficial back-scratching relationship.
None of CNN’s stable of political analysts and commentators are likely political candidates in 2010 or 2012. Pat Buchanan, a sometimes political candidate, has at times had limited roles on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and PBS, but he is an unlikely future candidate. Lou Dobbs, who left CNN and appears on Fox, has been rumored as a possible congressional candidate. When given an either/or choice, Chris Matthews chose to remain at MSNBC rather than become a candidate for the senate from Pennsylvania.
Fox News became a recent Washington joke when it promoted a Chris Wallace “exclusive interview” with Sarah Palin on Fox News Sunday. It should be rather easy to obtain “exclusives” with a person on your own payroll.
All this serves to highlight what an unholy alliance it is when journalism and politics become bedfellows.
Democracies in the history of western civilization have always depended upon “the fourth estate” to keep government honest or inform the people when government becomes corrupt, dishonest, or abusive of the citizens or the democratic process. Over the decades we have tolerated much from our press, and we have granted the press many privileges, because we have fiercely valued its independence from government.
While it is unseemly for even a single newspaper to engage in the unethical practices of news slanting, selective reporting, and outright political support of parties or candidates outside of its editorial and opinion pages, we have been more tolerant than we should be of those instances when this has happened. After all, this was only a single newspaper in a single city.
But we have learned how corrupting a monopolistic news source can be in states where one or two metropolitan papers control the information received by the people. When television came in around 1950, we had rules which prevented a major metro newspaper from owning a television station in the same news area. We also had rules against foreigners or foreign corporations owning television stations or networks.
But these rules have changed, and so has the level of involvement of news media in politics. The fairness doctrine was discarded, as were the limits on minutes per hour of commercials – much to our chagrin. Most such events, and the coming of Rupert Murdoch, occurred during the Reagan-Bush presidencies and the Gingrich dominated Congress. But that is a topic for another day.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, February 18, 2010
A REPUBLICAN DEFICIT PLAN
After a year of a legislative policy of “just say no,” at least one republican has come forth with an actual plan to fix the nation’s deficit. Republican Party leadership in Congress, however, has made it clear in their responses that his is not a “republican party plan,” but just his own ideas. However, the president states publicly that he has taken notice the plan. We might be a bit puzzled about all that.
In bringing forth his plan, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says he wants to be sure that the republican party is viewed as “the alternative party, not the opposition party.” That would, of course, be quite a change.
But let us look for a moment at the major features of Rep. Ryan’s proposed republican plan. What are his new ideas?
For openers, Rep. Ryan proposes to decrease corporate taxes and taxes on the investor class to “spur economic growth.” He would shift Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private insurance companies, thus privatizing these two government programs. He would immediately raise the retirement age to 70, and reduce Social Security benefits. Further, he would privatize Social Security by taking the SS payroll taxes and allowing them to be invested in private market accounts. (Where have we heard those ideas before?)
In other words, Mr. Ryan proposes scrapping (privatizing) much of the great social legislation of the last century, starting with the Mr. Roosevelt’s Social Security program enacted during the Great Depression. Or, should we say “the last great depression?”
Sure enough there are some fiscal authorities who say that Mr. Ryan’s plan would actually reduce the deficit over the next ten or twenty years, as well we might expect such draconian measures would. Mr. Ryan quite appropriately notes that his proposed solutions highlight differences in philosophy between the two parties – republicans and democrats. He is right on that point.
In the meantime, Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, writes that the political and media furor over the deficit amounts to “political scare tactics,” comparable to all that about the weapons of mass destruction and scares preceding taking this country to war in Iraq. The media are filled with various ominous statements about the deficits, he says, such as threats to economic recovery, threats to influence abroad, and threats to our economic stability. These are reported as facts, he says, and not as opinions.
But Krugman says that these are all opinions, most of them politically inspired and not held by mainstream economists.
“Fear mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear mongering on weapons of mass destruction,” the Nobel economist states in the New York Times. Current deficits are a result of the economic crisis, lowering revenue and increasing expenditures in protecting the country from a depression, he says.
“The point is that running large deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930’s is the right thing to do,” Krugman states unequivocally. He indicates that there will indeed be a time later for raising revenues, reducing expenditures, and balancing budgets. He insists that time is not now.
Republican politicians crying wolf about the deficit now are really not in a very defensible position to be doing so, if anyone bothers to check the facts. Recent republican administrations have a very bad record on deficits. The deficit tripled during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. A whopping $4.9 trillion in debt was run up under the recent George W. Bush administration, with his penchant for cutting taxes and undertaking both domestic and foreign adventures on deficit.
Krugman correctly identifies the source of “deficit hysteria.” “The answer,” he says, “is politics.”
Our opposition party in this country has consistently used the “strategy of fear” to gain its purposes, political and otherwise. As the economist noted, the politics of fear were employed to justify the ill fated Iraq War. Each time there was a critical national election, the alert level for Homeland Security appeared to be manipulated for an advantage. The much needed, moderate health care reform proposals were demonized, with the help of special interest money. The current “tea party” movement thrives on fear of one kind or another to provide frenzy to their efforts.
A recent independent study of the views of persons who identified themselves as “republican” is quite revealing, and rather frightening, on the mind-set of many in that party today. Most of us would prefer not to believe that a portion of our electorate could be this far off base.
According to this television news report, 31% of republicans polled believe that President Obama is a “racist.” A majority (63%) believe that the president is a “socialist.” And, 36% of republicans believe that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. These numbers are startling. They tend to support a position taken by this writer in earlier essays, namely that moderate republicans are disappearing from the scene.
It is unfortunate that party leadership, in Congress or elsewhere, have not undertaken to correct the thinking of their party rank and file. Instead they embrace such views. They appear to be frightened of the more extreme among their constituency. They are cowed by right wing media and by right wing money. Fox News and right wing radio support such thinking as that demonstrated above. Time and again their staff and their guests expound upon the “birther” thing and the “socialist” label. Beck (on Fox) and Limbaugh on radio consistently level all these, plus racist accusations.
The most perplexing thing about these numbers is that they go against just plain facts. The most frightening thing is that right wing media have succeeded in successfully brainwashing such a high percentage of that party to the point of losing factual orientation.
Some of us are old enough to remember a phenomenon similar to this, managed by Mr. Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany. The accompaniment of the “tea party” activist movement by a revival of the militaristic gun rights and militia movement of the McVey era is indeed disturbing.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
In bringing forth his plan, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says he wants to be sure that the republican party is viewed as “the alternative party, not the opposition party.” That would, of course, be quite a change.
But let us look for a moment at the major features of Rep. Ryan’s proposed republican plan. What are his new ideas?
For openers, Rep. Ryan proposes to decrease corporate taxes and taxes on the investor class to “spur economic growth.” He would shift Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private insurance companies, thus privatizing these two government programs. He would immediately raise the retirement age to 70, and reduce Social Security benefits. Further, he would privatize Social Security by taking the SS payroll taxes and allowing them to be invested in private market accounts. (Where have we heard those ideas before?)
In other words, Mr. Ryan proposes scrapping (privatizing) much of the great social legislation of the last century, starting with the Mr. Roosevelt’s Social Security program enacted during the Great Depression. Or, should we say “the last great depression?”
Sure enough there are some fiscal authorities who say that Mr. Ryan’s plan would actually reduce the deficit over the next ten or twenty years, as well we might expect such draconian measures would. Mr. Ryan quite appropriately notes that his proposed solutions highlight differences in philosophy between the two parties – republicans and democrats. He is right on that point.
In the meantime, Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, writes that the political and media furor over the deficit amounts to “political scare tactics,” comparable to all that about the weapons of mass destruction and scares preceding taking this country to war in Iraq. The media are filled with various ominous statements about the deficits, he says, such as threats to economic recovery, threats to influence abroad, and threats to our economic stability. These are reported as facts, he says, and not as opinions.
But Krugman says that these are all opinions, most of them politically inspired and not held by mainstream economists.
“Fear mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear mongering on weapons of mass destruction,” the Nobel economist states in the New York Times. Current deficits are a result of the economic crisis, lowering revenue and increasing expenditures in protecting the country from a depression, he says.
“The point is that running large deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930’s is the right thing to do,” Krugman states unequivocally. He indicates that there will indeed be a time later for raising revenues, reducing expenditures, and balancing budgets. He insists that time is not now.
Republican politicians crying wolf about the deficit now are really not in a very defensible position to be doing so, if anyone bothers to check the facts. Recent republican administrations have a very bad record on deficits. The deficit tripled during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. A whopping $4.9 trillion in debt was run up under the recent George W. Bush administration, with his penchant for cutting taxes and undertaking both domestic and foreign adventures on deficit.
Krugman correctly identifies the source of “deficit hysteria.” “The answer,” he says, “is politics.”
Our opposition party in this country has consistently used the “strategy of fear” to gain its purposes, political and otherwise. As the economist noted, the politics of fear were employed to justify the ill fated Iraq War. Each time there was a critical national election, the alert level for Homeland Security appeared to be manipulated for an advantage. The much needed, moderate health care reform proposals were demonized, with the help of special interest money. The current “tea party” movement thrives on fear of one kind or another to provide frenzy to their efforts.
A recent independent study of the views of persons who identified themselves as “republican” is quite revealing, and rather frightening, on the mind-set of many in that party today. Most of us would prefer not to believe that a portion of our electorate could be this far off base.
According to this television news report, 31% of republicans polled believe that President Obama is a “racist.” A majority (63%) believe that the president is a “socialist.” And, 36% of republicans believe that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. These numbers are startling. They tend to support a position taken by this writer in earlier essays, namely that moderate republicans are disappearing from the scene.
It is unfortunate that party leadership, in Congress or elsewhere, have not undertaken to correct the thinking of their party rank and file. Instead they embrace such views. They appear to be frightened of the more extreme among their constituency. They are cowed by right wing media and by right wing money. Fox News and right wing radio support such thinking as that demonstrated above. Time and again their staff and their guests expound upon the “birther” thing and the “socialist” label. Beck (on Fox) and Limbaugh on radio consistently level all these, plus racist accusations.
The most perplexing thing about these numbers is that they go against just plain facts. The most frightening thing is that right wing media have succeeded in successfully brainwashing such a high percentage of that party to the point of losing factual orientation.
Some of us are old enough to remember a phenomenon similar to this, managed by Mr. Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany. The accompaniment of the “tea party” activist movement by a revival of the militaristic gun rights and militia movement of the McVey era is indeed disturbing.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Saturday, February 13, 2010
WHO 'DEM TEA PARTY GOERS?
In the vernacular of New Orleans Saints’ fans, we might be prone to raise the question: “Who ‘dem Tea Party goers?” And, as compared to the famous car commercial of the olden days, “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile,” we could say, “These are not the same tea-baggers you last saw in a town near you.”
Television provides us with repetitive images from which we sort to choose those which represent groups of people or even ideas. Television has provided us with images of tea-baggers. There was that one lady who reminded us of Cousin Minnie Pearl of Grand ‘Ole Opry fame. She had tea-bags hanging from the brim of her hat, reminiscent of Cousin Minnie’s price tags hanging from her hat and clothes. Then there was that slouchy militia, red-neck type carrying an anti-Obama sign in one hand and a rifle in the other.
But, no, the tea party at the fancy Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Resort was not that so-called populist movement of tea-baggers we saw rallying here and there around the country, wherever a crowd was already gathered. However, the rhetoric sounded pretty much the same.
To begin with, that Gaylord hotel is a rather fancy place, and it costs money to stay there. It also costs money to get there. The registration fee for the tea party was $549, plus an extra $350 to attend the dinner to hear Sarah Palin speak to earn her $100,000 fee. This tea party carried a price tag of somewhere near $2,000 a person for a really big party experience. One might say that eliminated that riff-raff, populist bunch.
While the sponsorship of the Nashville tea party convention was a “for-profit” organization, that is not really all that different either. The whole tea party and tea-bagger “grass-roots” movement has had its wealthy and corporate sponsors providing the money and paying for the organizing of their “spontaneous” events, bus tours, and celebrations.
But this group of tea party goers was indeed different than most of those we saw carrying the signs and yelling anti-government slogans around the country the last six months. This one was made up of people who could afford to leave home and jobs and spend $3,000 to $4,000 a couple for a trip to Nashville to visit with one another and hear their favorite right wing politicians.
Not every tea-bagger was invited to come, not all wanted to go, and not many of the well known people in the party (or even the tea movement) were invited to speak. This was a select group. These folk have been having something of a falling out. Some are mad about this, and some about that. Outsiders don’t know too much about specifics. Some of the old bunch didn’t like the crowd that sponsored the party to make money. Some were mad because their favorites were not invited, or were uninvited, to speak. Mainstream republicans were slighted.
We couldn’t tell for sure from a distance, but it looked like affairs at this tea party of right wing, ultra-conservative, republican folk went off to suit them just fine. We heard about only two of their speakers, the keynoter and the finale. Those choices were interesting and different, as was their manner and material. Both were “ex-es,” one a failed congressman and one a failed vice-president candidate and governor who bailed out half-way in her first term.
The race-obsessed, anti-immigrant, former congressman Tancreado blamed illiterate Latinos and blacks for the election of President Obama. He spoke fondly of reviving “literacy tests” (which were used for decades to keep black people in the South from voting). He noted that these would have kept Mr. Obama out of office.
No less an authority than Meghan McCain has called this speech “innately racist.” Of course, the cheering tea party crowd was an all-white gathering, polling as anti-government and anti-Obama.
Mr. Tancreado spoke of the president by his three names, each enunciated slowly and clearly – Barrack Hussein Obama -- as only a speaker appealing to prejudice does. Of course, that was meant to convey that our president was really a foreigner and not “one of us.” He also called the president “a socialist ideologue.” Tancreado, as is his custom, managed to appeal to several of the lowest common denominator traits in his audience. Sadly, each time he did so, he received spontaneous, loud cheers.
In such manner was the level of character, culture, and intelligence of these tea party goers established. Only such a group would pay someone such as Sarah Palin to come in and give a $100,000 speech, or pay $350 to hear her give the speech and cheer her along.
Sarah did not disappoint her crowd. She heaped coals of fire on the president’s head. She railed against government and taxes. That’s what tea party people do. Then she managed to get in several real cutesy digs at the democrats and their leaders – of the sort like “lipstick on a hockey-mom,” or whatever that old one was. But one backfired.
Her dig at the president’s use of a teleprompter while reading from her prepared text did not go over with the outsider audience of TV clips, and the “cheat sheet” printed on her hand at which she looked and checked during a press interview and later remarks was worse. That became a big joke. It would have not been so bad, had it not exposed her own pointed remarks as hypocritical.
Sarah has become something of a celebrity. That would be okay, of course, if she did not pretend to be anything of gravitas or serious nature. People would be tolerant of her, just as they are of Paris Hilton. The fact that observations and polls indicate that both she and some 35% of our people think that she is qualified to be president is the potential tragedy.
But this tea party society is Sarah Palin’s venue. She fits well there. Not much intellectual substance is expected. Not much is given. They have money, and they gave it to her. This is her kind of crowd.
Television provides us with repetitive images from which we sort to choose those which represent groups of people or even ideas. Television has provided us with images of tea-baggers. There was that one lady who reminded us of Cousin Minnie Pearl of Grand ‘Ole Opry fame. She had tea-bags hanging from the brim of her hat, reminiscent of Cousin Minnie’s price tags hanging from her hat and clothes. Then there was that slouchy militia, red-neck type carrying an anti-Obama sign in one hand and a rifle in the other.
But, no, the tea party at the fancy Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Resort was not that so-called populist movement of tea-baggers we saw rallying here and there around the country, wherever a crowd was already gathered. However, the rhetoric sounded pretty much the same.
To begin with, that Gaylord hotel is a rather fancy place, and it costs money to stay there. It also costs money to get there. The registration fee for the tea party was $549, plus an extra $350 to attend the dinner to hear Sarah Palin speak to earn her $100,000 fee. This tea party carried a price tag of somewhere near $2,000 a person for a really big party experience. One might say that eliminated that riff-raff, populist bunch.
While the sponsorship of the Nashville tea party convention was a “for-profit” organization, that is not really all that different either. The whole tea party and tea-bagger “grass-roots” movement has had its wealthy and corporate sponsors providing the money and paying for the organizing of their “spontaneous” events, bus tours, and celebrations.
But this group of tea party goers was indeed different than most of those we saw carrying the signs and yelling anti-government slogans around the country the last six months. This one was made up of people who could afford to leave home and jobs and spend $3,000 to $4,000 a couple for a trip to Nashville to visit with one another and hear their favorite right wing politicians.
Not every tea-bagger was invited to come, not all wanted to go, and not many of the well known people in the party (or even the tea movement) were invited to speak. This was a select group. These folk have been having something of a falling out. Some are mad about this, and some about that. Outsiders don’t know too much about specifics. Some of the old bunch didn’t like the crowd that sponsored the party to make money. Some were mad because their favorites were not invited, or were uninvited, to speak. Mainstream republicans were slighted.
We couldn’t tell for sure from a distance, but it looked like affairs at this tea party of right wing, ultra-conservative, republican folk went off to suit them just fine. We heard about only two of their speakers, the keynoter and the finale. Those choices were interesting and different, as was their manner and material. Both were “ex-es,” one a failed congressman and one a failed vice-president candidate and governor who bailed out half-way in her first term.
The race-obsessed, anti-immigrant, former congressman Tancreado blamed illiterate Latinos and blacks for the election of President Obama. He spoke fondly of reviving “literacy tests” (which were used for decades to keep black people in the South from voting). He noted that these would have kept Mr. Obama out of office.
No less an authority than Meghan McCain has called this speech “innately racist.” Of course, the cheering tea party crowd was an all-white gathering, polling as anti-government and anti-Obama.
Mr. Tancreado spoke of the president by his three names, each enunciated slowly and clearly – Barrack Hussein Obama -- as only a speaker appealing to prejudice does. Of course, that was meant to convey that our president was really a foreigner and not “one of us.” He also called the president “a socialist ideologue.” Tancreado, as is his custom, managed to appeal to several of the lowest common denominator traits in his audience. Sadly, each time he did so, he received spontaneous, loud cheers.
In such manner was the level of character, culture, and intelligence of these tea party goers established. Only such a group would pay someone such as Sarah Palin to come in and give a $100,000 speech, or pay $350 to hear her give the speech and cheer her along.
Sarah did not disappoint her crowd. She heaped coals of fire on the president’s head. She railed against government and taxes. That’s what tea party people do. Then she managed to get in several real cutesy digs at the democrats and their leaders – of the sort like “lipstick on a hockey-mom,” or whatever that old one was. But one backfired.
Her dig at the president’s use of a teleprompter while reading from her prepared text did not go over with the outsider audience of TV clips, and the “cheat sheet” printed on her hand at which she looked and checked during a press interview and later remarks was worse. That became a big joke. It would have not been so bad, had it not exposed her own pointed remarks as hypocritical.
Sarah has become something of a celebrity. That would be okay, of course, if she did not pretend to be anything of gravitas or serious nature. People would be tolerant of her, just as they are of Paris Hilton. The fact that observations and polls indicate that both she and some 35% of our people think that she is qualified to be president is the potential tragedy.
But this tea party society is Sarah Palin’s venue. She fits well there. Not much intellectual substance is expected. Not much is given. They have money, and they gave it to her. This is her kind of crowd.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
MODERATE REPUBLICAN OXYMORON
The term “moderate republican” has become increasingly outdated and has reached the dubious status of oxymoron. The party has become increasingly dominated by the hard liners – now those who are even right of right. The “tea bagger” element appears to have taken over.
The titular head of the party, its national committee chair, is unafraid of any democrat in the universe. Just listen and he will tell us so. But he skitters in the wind if it blows from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News or “rushes” in from the radio voice of the great Limbaugh.
Does anyone remember when John McCain was a maverick, a moderate republican who co-sponsored a comprehensive immigration bill, or the one who worked across the aisle with democrat Feingold to craft what might have been a phenomenal campaign finance law? Now, he grimaces during the State of the Union speech at the negative mention of the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations unlimited funding of political issues and campaigns. He is having trouble with a right wing opponent in Arizona.
McCain went right as he started his own campaign for his party nomination more than two years ago. His accepted party dictates for a dizzy glamour girl from the right to spice up his lagging personality appeal. His general campaign rhetoric was almost totally negative, including personal attacks on his democratic opponent and allowing his minions to disseminate known falsehoods. McCain no longer has real leadership status either within the party or with the far right.
Mitt Romney set a similar example as he went from moderate to arch-conservative for the campaign and ever since. Although he had sponsored some enlightened moves in health care as governor, generally he ran away from his own social accomplishments in working with democrats. Trying to woo a party element that was his inferior, he lost his own credibility with all.
Poor Charlie Crisp in Florida, apparently a good man and a good governor, is being swamped by the right winger candidate opposing him in the party primary for senate. Has everybody in that party gone crazy? Why do they cannibalize those among them with most promise? Has that party’s base listened to Limbaugh for so long that they have become equally irrational? Is there now a party of “ditto-heads?”
President Obama has on occasion told his opposition in Washington, “I will call you out!” Such remarks were normally made as a polite warning to stop demonizing his proposals with lies and distortions, as has become the custom in political circles. Partisan news media and pundits have joined leaders of the “party of nope” to raise public suspicion of all actions and proposals of the Obama administration. They said openly, “If we defeat any health care bill, we defeat Obama,” putting politics above people.
They have succeeded to the point where rational republicans have lost control of the party. Now they are seen chasing after the out-of-control “tea bagger” mob they created. It reminds us of the story from the French revolution of the man running down the street tailing the mob to storm the Bastille saying to a friend, “I cannot stop to talk. I am the leader of this mob.”
President Obama “called them out” in his State of the Union speech. They squirmed. They sat on their hands. They grimaced. They made snide remarks to one another, or for the cameras. Diplomatically but directly, he chastened those who have used falsehoods and distortions to frighten Americans. He reiterated the problems encountered as he entered the presidency a year ago, for which most republicans seek to blame him. He laid out their refusal to work in any bipartisan fashion, but rather to caucus and agree to unanimous “No” votes on everything.
The President called into question the wisdom of the Court in granting corporations “free speech” rights as persons, and with their decision to allow corporate money without limits into politics and elections. He called for Congress to correct the problems foreseen. He stopped short of saying that we will now have the “best democracy corporations can buy.” Republicans remained sullen. Why? Do they really favor further corruption?
One is reminded of a quotation from a 1936 speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Government by organized money is just as bad as government by organized mob.” Proving once again its political partisan base, the court ruled on unlimited corporate money by a five-to-four vote, just as it elected George W. Bush to be president by that same vote in 2000. Such action also confirms the party’s posture as the party of business, while the democrats stubbornly maintain their claim as the party of the people.
Following the State of the Union, the Republican Party made a couple of huge mistakes. Feeling a momentum shift from their win in Massachusetts as a result of the State of the Union address to the nation, they invited Mr. Obama to come to their House Caucus retreat in Baltimore. He agreed, with the caveat that cameras would be allowed both for his speech and for the question and answer session. Gleefully they accepted those two conditions, thinking surely 140 to 1 were really great odds for a televised encounter. Not so.
In his speech the President continued some of the themes of his State of the Union speech, reiterating the need for genuine bipartisanship, a halt to playing politics with reform proposals, the factual success of the stimulus bill, need to regulate errant banks, and so on. Republicans came to the meeting question and answer period armed with “questions” buried deep into long discourses repeating their party talking points often heard before.
One after another, a knowledgeable and skillful president swept them away, and nailed them with the truth. He suggested that if they continued to “demonize” him and everything he proposed, then there was no way that their base would support them working in any bi-partisan fashion with him on anything. And, so it has been.
The president’s artful debating skills, augmented by truth, made a huge impact within the media community and perhaps some with the observant public. Interestingly enough, Fox News interrupted coverage of the debate and substituted their pundits criticizing the president. Taking their own republican meeting off the air was a sure sign of a losing game.
Mr. Obama may very well be competitive as the most skillful president in recent times at handling crowds, and even hostile groups. President Clinton was outstanding extemporaneously in front of a group, friendly or hostile. He was a policy wonk and could handle all sorts of questions, just as Mr. Obama does. The current president has maybe just one edge, a quick wit with a disarming smile.
This past week was a good one for democrats. News of fourth quarter economic growth at a remarkable 5.7% validatd the effects of the stimulus bill, so often attacked. After the disappointing loss in Massachusetts, democrats recovered some of their composure – and perhaps just a bit of their swagger.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The titular head of the party, its national committee chair, is unafraid of any democrat in the universe. Just listen and he will tell us so. But he skitters in the wind if it blows from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News or “rushes” in from the radio voice of the great Limbaugh.
Does anyone remember when John McCain was a maverick, a moderate republican who co-sponsored a comprehensive immigration bill, or the one who worked across the aisle with democrat Feingold to craft what might have been a phenomenal campaign finance law? Now, he grimaces during the State of the Union speech at the negative mention of the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations unlimited funding of political issues and campaigns. He is having trouble with a right wing opponent in Arizona.
McCain went right as he started his own campaign for his party nomination more than two years ago. His accepted party dictates for a dizzy glamour girl from the right to spice up his lagging personality appeal. His general campaign rhetoric was almost totally negative, including personal attacks on his democratic opponent and allowing his minions to disseminate known falsehoods. McCain no longer has real leadership status either within the party or with the far right.
Mitt Romney set a similar example as he went from moderate to arch-conservative for the campaign and ever since. Although he had sponsored some enlightened moves in health care as governor, generally he ran away from his own social accomplishments in working with democrats. Trying to woo a party element that was his inferior, he lost his own credibility with all.
Poor Charlie Crisp in Florida, apparently a good man and a good governor, is being swamped by the right winger candidate opposing him in the party primary for senate. Has everybody in that party gone crazy? Why do they cannibalize those among them with most promise? Has that party’s base listened to Limbaugh for so long that they have become equally irrational? Is there now a party of “ditto-heads?”
President Obama has on occasion told his opposition in Washington, “I will call you out!” Such remarks were normally made as a polite warning to stop demonizing his proposals with lies and distortions, as has become the custom in political circles. Partisan news media and pundits have joined leaders of the “party of nope” to raise public suspicion of all actions and proposals of the Obama administration. They said openly, “If we defeat any health care bill, we defeat Obama,” putting politics above people.
They have succeeded to the point where rational republicans have lost control of the party. Now they are seen chasing after the out-of-control “tea bagger” mob they created. It reminds us of the story from the French revolution of the man running down the street tailing the mob to storm the Bastille saying to a friend, “I cannot stop to talk. I am the leader of this mob.”
President Obama “called them out” in his State of the Union speech. They squirmed. They sat on their hands. They grimaced. They made snide remarks to one another, or for the cameras. Diplomatically but directly, he chastened those who have used falsehoods and distortions to frighten Americans. He reiterated the problems encountered as he entered the presidency a year ago, for which most republicans seek to blame him. He laid out their refusal to work in any bipartisan fashion, but rather to caucus and agree to unanimous “No” votes on everything.
The President called into question the wisdom of the Court in granting corporations “free speech” rights as persons, and with their decision to allow corporate money without limits into politics and elections. He called for Congress to correct the problems foreseen. He stopped short of saying that we will now have the “best democracy corporations can buy.” Republicans remained sullen. Why? Do they really favor further corruption?
One is reminded of a quotation from a 1936 speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Government by organized money is just as bad as government by organized mob.” Proving once again its political partisan base, the court ruled on unlimited corporate money by a five-to-four vote, just as it elected George W. Bush to be president by that same vote in 2000. Such action also confirms the party’s posture as the party of business, while the democrats stubbornly maintain their claim as the party of the people.
Following the State of the Union, the Republican Party made a couple of huge mistakes. Feeling a momentum shift from their win in Massachusetts as a result of the State of the Union address to the nation, they invited Mr. Obama to come to their House Caucus retreat in Baltimore. He agreed, with the caveat that cameras would be allowed both for his speech and for the question and answer session. Gleefully they accepted those two conditions, thinking surely 140 to 1 were really great odds for a televised encounter. Not so.
In his speech the President continued some of the themes of his State of the Union speech, reiterating the need for genuine bipartisanship, a halt to playing politics with reform proposals, the factual success of the stimulus bill, need to regulate errant banks, and so on. Republicans came to the meeting question and answer period armed with “questions” buried deep into long discourses repeating their party talking points often heard before.
One after another, a knowledgeable and skillful president swept them away, and nailed them with the truth. He suggested that if they continued to “demonize” him and everything he proposed, then there was no way that their base would support them working in any bi-partisan fashion with him on anything. And, so it has been.
The president’s artful debating skills, augmented by truth, made a huge impact within the media community and perhaps some with the observant public. Interestingly enough, Fox News interrupted coverage of the debate and substituted their pundits criticizing the president. Taking their own republican meeting off the air was a sure sign of a losing game.
Mr. Obama may very well be competitive as the most skillful president in recent times at handling crowds, and even hostile groups. President Clinton was outstanding extemporaneously in front of a group, friendly or hostile. He was a policy wonk and could handle all sorts of questions, just as Mr. Obama does. The current president has maybe just one edge, a quick wit with a disarming smile.
This past week was a good one for democrats. News of fourth quarter economic growth at a remarkable 5.7% validatd the effects of the stimulus bill, so often attacked. After the disappointing loss in Massachusetts, democrats recovered some of their composure – and perhaps just a bit of their swagger.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, February 01, 2010
AUDACITY OF "NOPE"
Who would have thought that a party, any political party, which had done
nothing but say, “No,” to every positive action and proposal significant to the nation put before its delegation in Congress could possibly be laying a
plausible claim to “winning” after a year of such negatives? “Nobody would’ve thunk it,” to use a Yogi Berra expression. That is so far from a winning tactic, it is difficult to imagine any success could come from it.
Well, it would likely have not been so, had there been a fair debate on the
merits of the issues placed before Congress for consideration.
The Republican Party, and its various spin-off radical groups with heavy
financial backing, had minions out in full force. They were in the mainstream media, their Fox channel, talk radio, the so-called town meetings, and the faux grass roots “tea bagger” movement sponsored by organized moneyed sources. The American people, regardless of the wisdom and credit lauded upon them by politicians, may well be the most gullible people in the world.
With control of talk radio and a right wing news channel, the republicans have told the people, over and over and time and time again, that everything coming out of Washington is evil. Of course, this is emphasized all the more during a democratic administration. Big business in this country has always preferred a laissez faire, deregulating government with an attitude that anything that is good for business is good for the country. Never mind that such an attitude usually results in hurt and catastrophe for the little people, and in the most recent case -- the country’s big banks and a near collapse of the nation’s economy.
The country is indeed sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington. They are tired of stalemate and gridlock. They are tired of democrats fighting among themselves and squandering their opportunity to accomplish something good. They are tired of their welfare and their interests not receiving attention commensurate with the big banks and car companies. They are sick of losing jobs while our buying imports abroad increases.
The right-wing communicators in this country have taken advantage of all this pent up anger, and they have blamed it on actions that the democratic leadership has taken to try to save the country from disaster and to help the people. Hence the financial bailout bill was condemned as giving taxpayer money to big banks, which then gave their management big bonuses. The stimulus package, which has saved millions of jobs across the country, has been examined microscopically and a few seemingly dumb projects exploited in the mainstream, as well as the right wing media, to color the whole effort black.
Mainstream media have assisted the nay-sayers in getting their message out. In their constant search of controversy and audience interest-building for their own dollar inflow, mainstream media have given wide circulation to negative voices with nothing other than criticism to stir up questions and controversy. Apparently, critical remarks draw bigger audiences than do positive explanations of the better features of a proposed program.
More lies have been told about the president’s proposed health care reform
measures than any other. This has been demonized in every conceivable fashion, using every conceivable mass communications technique. Kept busy refuting the falsehoods and distortions spread by republicans and their fringe fanatics, those favoring changes for the benefit of consumers have simply been drowned out. Those for positive change were always on the defensive, and it is terribly difficult to combat distortions, lies, and half-truths and to explain something complex at the same time.
Indeed the party of “nope” has been winning, because the American people have been responding to emotion, to their pent-up frustrations, and to false and misleading information. Members of the public have neither examined the logic nor the validity of information presented to them. They have been deluded into ditto-thinking according to what they hear. They have not been engaged in critical thinking for themselves.
Those of us with careers in education who thought we were teaching students to think critically have been proven to have a high rate of failures. Too few of our protégés have been practicing that logic. But on the other hand, there is always that “audacity of hope.”
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
nothing but say, “No,” to every positive action and proposal significant to the nation put before its delegation in Congress could possibly be laying a
plausible claim to “winning” after a year of such negatives? “Nobody would’ve thunk it,” to use a Yogi Berra expression. That is so far from a winning tactic, it is difficult to imagine any success could come from it.
Well, it would likely have not been so, had there been a fair debate on the
merits of the issues placed before Congress for consideration.
The Republican Party, and its various spin-off radical groups with heavy
financial backing, had minions out in full force. They were in the mainstream media, their Fox channel, talk radio, the so-called town meetings, and the faux grass roots “tea bagger” movement sponsored by organized moneyed sources. The American people, regardless of the wisdom and credit lauded upon them by politicians, may well be the most gullible people in the world.
With control of talk radio and a right wing news channel, the republicans have told the people, over and over and time and time again, that everything coming out of Washington is evil. Of course, this is emphasized all the more during a democratic administration. Big business in this country has always preferred a laissez faire, deregulating government with an attitude that anything that is good for business is good for the country. Never mind that such an attitude usually results in hurt and catastrophe for the little people, and in the most recent case -- the country’s big banks and a near collapse of the nation’s economy.
The country is indeed sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington. They are tired of stalemate and gridlock. They are tired of democrats fighting among themselves and squandering their opportunity to accomplish something good. They are tired of their welfare and their interests not receiving attention commensurate with the big banks and car companies. They are sick of losing jobs while our buying imports abroad increases.
The right-wing communicators in this country have taken advantage of all this pent up anger, and they have blamed it on actions that the democratic leadership has taken to try to save the country from disaster and to help the people. Hence the financial bailout bill was condemned as giving taxpayer money to big banks, which then gave their management big bonuses. The stimulus package, which has saved millions of jobs across the country, has been examined microscopically and a few seemingly dumb projects exploited in the mainstream, as well as the right wing media, to color the whole effort black.
Mainstream media have assisted the nay-sayers in getting their message out. In their constant search of controversy and audience interest-building for their own dollar inflow, mainstream media have given wide circulation to negative voices with nothing other than criticism to stir up questions and controversy. Apparently, critical remarks draw bigger audiences than do positive explanations of the better features of a proposed program.
More lies have been told about the president’s proposed health care reform
measures than any other. This has been demonized in every conceivable fashion, using every conceivable mass communications technique. Kept busy refuting the falsehoods and distortions spread by republicans and their fringe fanatics, those favoring changes for the benefit of consumers have simply been drowned out. Those for positive change were always on the defensive, and it is terribly difficult to combat distortions, lies, and half-truths and to explain something complex at the same time.
Indeed the party of “nope” has been winning, because the American people have been responding to emotion, to their pent-up frustrations, and to false and misleading information. Members of the public have neither examined the logic nor the validity of information presented to them. They have been deluded into ditto-thinking according to what they hear. They have not been engaged in critical thinking for themselves.
Those of us with careers in education who thought we were teaching students to think critically have been proven to have a high rate of failures. Too few of our protégés have been practicing that logic. But on the other hand, there is always that “audacity of hope.”
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
