I have no particuar special insight into Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC. Given the way it's been handled, I'm not sure that anyone else does either. But a few things seem pretty obvious--not about the inner dynamics of what went on between Olbermann and MSNBC, but about the larger dynamics of the mediasphere.
First off, regardless of whose initiative it was, it seems clear that MSNBC wasn't terribly eager to hold on to Olbermann. There's nothing particularly unique about this. It's not just that MSNBC fired Donohue, too. That can be written off as simple cowardice and/or mindless jingoism in the run-up to war. That was before. This is after. And Olbermann is one the highest-profile people who was proven essentially correct. Living in Los Angeles, I'm extremely aware of another high-profile person who was proven correct, and was subsequently fired: columnist Robert Scheer, formerly of the LA Times, now of his own TruthDig.org. The Times didn't even bother trying to replace Scheer. They loaded up with even more off-the-shelf rightwingers than they had before.
Of course, the Times has been in general self-destruct mode for quite some time now--it gets significantly worse, then it semi-stabilizes a bit, then there's another major collapse, and so it goes. But that's true of American media in general. And it's been going on for a very long time now.
In short,this is political--if not in its precise details, which we don't know yet--then in the entire setting in which it takes place. After Olbermann's temporary suspension, Robert Parry--a former award-winning mainstream news reporter (AP, Newsweek, etc.) who broke the first major story about Iran/Contra a full six months before other Versailles media picked it up--wrote this:
The Left's primary media outlet is now the evening programming at MSNBC, which is currently owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor, and which will soon be transferred to Comcast that - like GE - has other corporate priorities in Washington that Republicans can either aid or obstruct.
The recent suspension and humiliation of MSNBC's biggest star, Keith Olbermann, for making three personal donations to Democratic candidates without first getting corporate approval, indicates the true pecking order within NBC and GE.
Olbermann and the other liberal hosts are essentially on borrowed time, much the way Phil Donahue was before getting axed in the run-up to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, when MSNBC wanted to position itself as a "patriotic" war booster.
Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.
For the suits at headquarters, it's just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.
Because of the magnitude and intensity of the Right's media, Republicans can confidently sell a wide variety of propaganda themes to the American people. The themes might not make much sense, but they develop a ring of truth because they get repeated so often.
The imbalance has been made appreciably worse by the Left's neglect of media, an attitude that can be traced to the 1970s when progressives dismantled much of the Vietnam War era's "underground press" and downplayed the role of national think tanks in favor of local organizing under the banner, "think globally, act locally."
As someone who has been involved somewhat in the punditry circuit (for lack of a better term), I have been asked by progressive friends what I think is needed for the Left to compete with the Right, not so much in the war of ideas, as idea distribution.
To begin with, we need people who can confidently promote progressive values on television and radio. While the last decade has seen the creation and expansion of progressive think tanks, Air America Radio (an incubator of such talent as Rachel Maddow and Sam Seder), and even primetime MSNBC's becoming a mini-progressive tv outpost, we still lack the funding of the Right, and the pipeline it creates.
A 24-hour conservative television station and talk radio both nationally and locally dominated by conservatives doesn't only get the message out and give cover to politicians and political ideas once considered slightly to the right of insane (make no mistake, they've used these and many print distribution channels to take Bircherism, or Hofstadter's "Paranoid Style," mainstream--something which was once looked at as absolute looniness by those who even controlled the Establishment on the Right).
It also has created everyone from Glenn Beck to Sean Hannity to Tucker Carlson (we can also thank The Weekly Standard and Swanson for this last honor, as in Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson). So we may not have that. Or Heritage Foundation Summer School (with balconies!) and, for the most part, the other think tanks that pay conservative "thinkers" real salaries just to think out loud during non-paid tv segments, in low-paying articles and columns, and to write books nobody buys--but reach the NY Times bestseller list because these think tanks bulk buy 20,000 of them the minute they come out.
But we are making progress in other areas. One project I'm involved with, The Progressive Talent Initiative, not only provides 3.5 days of media training including everything from performance critiques to messaging advice, but the relationship continues afterwards, as the program gives you a tune up when you need it and helps get you booked for appearances.
It is a great program, which I had the luck of attending, and now maybe it's your turn. If you're a political strategist, progressive activist, blogger, academic, non-profit dweller or the like, this could be a great program for you to earn the key messaging and media training skills the Left so critically needs. The training is free to participants so if you are selected, can take the time to participate and are eager and willing to be booked after the training, the PTI team will take care of everything else.
If this is something you've been thinking about, give it a shot, as we need progressives armed with not only the facts, but the ability to share them with persuadable audiences.
So what are you doing March 9th-12th? If you'd like to apply for media training, now's your chance. The training is limited to only 12 participants, so showcase your talents in your application for the review committee to see. Application is available here and is open until January 14. So get in the game my friends!
(No time to let up now! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Simply incredible. In 24 hours over 200,000 people have signed our Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) petition to MSNBC demanding they put Keith Olbermann back up on the air.
If you haven't heard the news, MSNBC suspended Keith without pay for gasp, donating to three Democratic candidates this cycle. As @TheShannonFiles tweeted:
I think they picked a bad time to fuck with the Progressive movement. We're a little pissed off.
The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.
The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." A political action committee is defined as:"a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate." Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative "The New York Post" in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: "The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses." What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it's because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch's primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.
The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on "Hannity" was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:" If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way." According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: "The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox's biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend." Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: "Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama - and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well." Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
When you look across the political spectrum to Fox's chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: "All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts." To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network's payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn't the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of "Fair and Balanced" from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?
Taxes, more than any other issue is what drives the Tea Party movement. Thus those philosophical arguments related to taxation and the resulting size of government constitute the very essence of the rationale for the movement's existence. How then will the movement react and adapt to the latest findings of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which reveal the movement's essential positions to be clearly at odds with empirical facts? As such, the Tea Party movement may soon find that the very rationale for its existence is being fundamentally challenged by a reality very much at variance with the movement's belief system. Likewise, the Republican rhetoric about taxes increasing may also start to ring hollow.
The Bureau's findings as reported by UPI are as follows: "Including state, federal and local taxes -- with sales tax and property tax thrown in -- the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009.... That's down from an average of 12 percent over the past 50 years. The tax burden has not been this low since 1950...The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years...The tax rate has fallen 26 percent since 2007, a sharp drop that reflects progressive tax rates passed during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the 2009 federal stimulus bill that cut taxes by $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000." The Bureau's findings are just the latest in a growing body of evidence that refutes the basic premise which the Tea Party movement relies upon to energize its followers and fuel it's much hoped for transformation of American government. In a piece that followed this years Tax Day Protests, the Associated Press observed: "Lost in the rhetoric was that taxes have gone down under Obama. Congress has cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion, leaving Americans with a lighter load despite nearly $29 billion in increases by states."
In an article, which appeared in Forbes in March; "The Misinformed Tea Party Movement", conservative writer Bruce Bartlett outlined just how little members of the Tea Party movement actually knew about the structure and level of taxation. Utilizing a survey of movement protestors at a recent rally Bartlett found: "Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944... In short, no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family." In contrast in 2009 the corresponding number was 14.8%. When it comes to the structure and composition of taxes, the Bartlett article is chock full of repudiation for just about everything that the Tea Partiers believe in and that does not bode well for a movement that has as one of it's stated goals, the reconstitution of the size of American government based on its belief that taxes are too high and that they will crowd private borrowers out of the credit markets. Bartlett sums up his skeptisim of the Tea Party movement with an insightful statement that points out just how confused the Tea Partiers may be: "It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993." And to think, such an observation would roll off the tonuge of an economic censervative who once promoted supply-side theories and who had also worked for Ron Paul!
Ironically, its not just on the issue of taxes that the Tea Party movement is in a bit of a pickle. For one thing, the movement's overall lack of a cohesive strategy for affecting political change works against its durability as a force on the American politcal scene. Atlantic's Michael Kinsley points out that unlike the anti-war movement of the 1960s which had a central theme and aim, the Tea Party movement is so fractionalized in terms of leadership and difuse in its overall ideological makeup so as to be more than a little precarious as a long term movement with staying power. Quoting Kinsley:" Not only do TPPs (Tea Party Patriots) not have one big issue like Vietnam-they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal." Kinsley points out that in their undefined frustrations the Tea Partiers have in affect discarded the much-cherished notion so dear to the conservative credo, self responsibility, in that everyone's problems can be directly traced back to Washington D.C. or their state capitol. Kinsley defines this inherent flaw in the movement as follows: "Personal responsibility" has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs-even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn't have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great "other," a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?"
There is one other major time bomb ticking away inside the Tea Party movement, and that is the company it keeps. Who are the leading personalities associated with the movement, none other than some of the most controversial characters alive in American politics today: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck. If Bachmann and Palin weren't the Thelma and Louise of the far right, who would it be? I mean if the G.O.P. ever were to find itself in the back seat of their car they will, like the movie characters find themselves on a joy ride off of a cliff and heading straight for political disaster. It goes without saying, that having Beck as the Tea Party movement's most vocal media personality leaves allot to be desired, unless your aim is to turn the movement into a laughingstock. After all, can you put together a more gruesome threesome than the aforementioned when it comes to alienating independents from the Republican Party? I doubt it.
Lets face it, if it were not for the fact that the Tea Party movement has become the primary pawn in the ideological proxy war between MSNBC and Fox News, its presence on the American political landscape would be far less visible. A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement and that this group is largely white, had supported McCain and presently backs Sarah Palin. But in what could be the most telling piece of evidence derived from the Quinnipiac Poll is that: "Overall, this survey paints a picture of the Tea Party movement that encompasses a broad swath of the American middle class, but clearly at this stage one that is a minority group. In essence their numbers equate to about the size of the African-American electorate overall," That said and with that empirical evidence in hand, does anyone really think for a second that the future of American Conservatism or its fellow traveler the G.O.P. is best served by hitching its wagon to the Tea Party movement, especially when that movement has been exposed as containing a fundamental philosophical credo that is so starkly at variance with established political facts and trends.
3) Tea Party Rally Upbraids 'Gangster Government' by The Associated Presshttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125251286&sc=emaf.
4) My Country, Tis of Me, There's nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots. by Michael Kinsleyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/my-country-tis-of-me/8088/
5) QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL: TEA PARTY COULD HURT GOPhttp://thepage.time.com/quinnipiac-university-national-poll-tea-party-could-hurt-gop/
On April 19th, on the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, MSNBC will televise live footage of interviews with Timothy McVeigh, the right wing mastermind of the attack. In light of all the turbulence and controversy surrounding the administration of Barack Obama, is this just another case of crass sensationalism or does it serve as a timely, in your face, reminder of what constitutes an extreme threat to public safety?
In my last two articles: Coming Unhinged on the Far Right and Hutaree Militia: Foiled Fantasy of a Citizen's Uprising, I pointed out what I believe to be an undeniable trend towards a violent confrontation between the government and the far right. I experienced some degree of pushback from conservatives who fell back on the argument that the left had committed plenty of violent acts in the sixties, as if that were somehow relevant today. Nowhere in either of these articles did I ignore, condone or endorse left wing violence. In fact I roundly deplored all political violence:" It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means."
Many conservatives would point to an incident of labor thuggery by SEIU members, the Weathermen Bombings or the Seattle World Trade Organization anarchist riots as being somehow equivalent to the damage done in Oklahoma City or on par with the numerous deaths thus far committed by anti-government extremists since the inauguration of Barak Obama. In doing so, they are deliberately ignoring the facts that currently exist. Some critics went so far as to label the recent reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center as just a bunch of "liberal propaganda" for having pointed out the exponential growth in hate groups and anti-government "patriot" organizations since the Obama election. This argument, that past left-wing terror is somehow relevant to dealing with today's clear and present danger, is a straw man argument being made by people who are fooling themselves with a historically challenged analysis in assessing the present situation. Its either that or they are so heavily invested in an anti-Obama crusade that they have become complacent in accepting this threat as it has yet to produce another Oklahoma City. Thus far it serves to support their anti-government animus so they have implicitly accepted the rhetoric while not actually endorsing violent acts.
I spent the last week with my reserve unit where I am part of an armed maritime security / law enforcement team. One of our team leaders is also a U.S. Marshall and SWAT team member with a background in having dealt with anti-government groups. We got on to the topic of domestic terror and his name and office will remain anonymous. I asked him if he had witnessed a significant rise in the number of anti-government organizations and he answered yes to that question. I asked him if they were predominately right wing and he said while there are some on the left, there were more on the right. Furthermore, I asked him if the findings of the Southern Poverty Law Center constituted legitimate research, again he agreed with me that their findings are consistent with what he was seeing from with inside the Marshall's Service. He went on to say that the Secret Service was working overtime to keep up with all of the potential threats that have emerged in the last six months.
On this Sunday's Chris Matthews Show the topic of domestic terror was front and center and Matthews presented two quotes from right wing extremists to underline his point that this is a serious problem. Michael Savage on his April 9th Savage Nation Show said: What we need is a vigorous right-wing movement in America, not a Tea Party. And you need to face off against those scum on the left and then you'll have a nation. Then there was Mike Vanderboegh of Freedom Radio on March 17 who advocated going for the throats of the country's elites. Finally, Nora O'Donnell pointed out how Sarah Palin starts off so many of her speeches with "Do you love you freedom." implying that the current administration is bent on taking it away. If anyone can claim, that at least the Savage and Vanderboegh quotes are not an incitement to violent behavior that would to me constitute an act of outright self-denial.
If individuals are being complacent in their implicit acceptance of this incendiary rhetoric, what then is the position being taken by the Republican Party? I found it interesting that every one of Matthews' panelists pointed out that to date, the G.O.P. has said very little in the way of condemning those on the far right who have put forth politically violent and vitriolic commentary. A salient point made by the commentators was that Fox News had allowed both Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to run wild with their comments and that the G.O.P. of today lacks the moderating forces of thirty years ago who would have distanced the Party from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Joe Klein, having looked up the meaning of sedition said, the current language of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin "came up against the seditious." Even Kathleen Parker who is listed on the conservative TownHall.com website of conservative columnists said:" The Republican Party must distance itself from the far right otherwise it will be seen as complicit."
In the final analysis, when you take in to account the totality of the present situation, I think the MSNBC airing of the McVeigh Tapes should serve as a reminder of just how dangerous and incendiary rhetoric can become. That said, it is impossible to deny that there is an element of the sensational in the airing of McVeigh's interviews. But it is also hard to deny that there are those among us who in their deep dislike of Barak Obama and dynamic social change are silently endorsing the very language on the part of leading right-wing politicians and media personalities, which could lead us, God forbid, down the road to another Oklahoma City.
Sunday evening, as a long-debated health care bill passed through Congress, something quite strange was happening on the websites of two eminent news organizations.
Fox News, of course, is famous as an embodiment of the right-wing machine. Yet its web page last night looked like a resounding endorsement of the health care bill. There is a dignified picture of the president, in a room full of celebrating aides. The picture is titled, in big white font, "This is what change looks like."
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case ofBush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
Not that raising tens of millions of dollars and engaging in all kinds of other activism to elect Democrats like Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards and Sen. Merkley counts for anything.
I am seeing potential for a video remix at a Netroots Nation party next year, akin to:
Stewart nails it such that I'll even transcribe it for you.
Interviewer: Do you think FOX News is biased?
Valerie Jarrett: Well of course they're biased, of course they are...
Excellent job. Right on message. But watch her retreat into her shell when asked...
Interviewer: Do you also think MSNBC is biased?
Jarrett: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing, I don't want, actually, I don't want to just generalize all FOX is biased, or another station is biased...
Wow, that was a train wreck. Jon Stewart dissects:
Stewart: Just say of course MSNBC is biased, but they agree with us! So we're not fighting with them! And by the way, MSNBC wishes they were as good as FOX. They're the Toledo Mud Hens to the FOX's Yankees. MSNBC doesn't even realize their morning show is hosted by a conservative. Obama administration, do you even know your role in all of this?
Jarrett: What the administration has said very clearly is, we're going to speak truth to power...
Stewart: What the %!$@?! Truth to power! You're the White House! You're the power! Here's how it goes in the truth to power statement: it's your job to %!$@ up power, it's FOX's job to %!$@up truth!
One of the interesting elements of the battle with FOX- which I think the Administration is running half-assed, so far- is how people immediately get tripped up when asked about MSNBC. Some say yes, some say no, some say yes but not the same way FOX is. I've never seen anyone be able to answer that dreaded MSNBC follow-up. But this isn't rocket science.
Here's my advice to the Administration. First, sit down together and get yourselves a single set of talking points on this issue. Second, they should say the following: "Every cable news show invites on people with opinion. What makes FOX different is that every element of their show is biased opinion, from their anchors to their commentators to the stories they choose to cover. That's why they're not a news channel, they're an opinion channel that operates as an arm of the Republican Party, and that's why the White House is treating them we do any other biased opinion channel."
Today, I was invited on MSNBC to discuss the distraction-topic of Rep. Michele Bachmann inserting "sex clinics" into the health care debate. Via her local paper:
Rep. Michele Bachmann continues to surprise us, despite us believing she couldn't ever surprise us again with her over-the-top and flat-out false fear mongering.
This is a good one though. Bachmann has decided that part of the health care bill that discusses school-based clinics (she calls them sex clinics) would lead to students being whisked away during school hours for abortions without parent consent. OMG. Totally plausible.
I decided there were 3 things that could salvage this otherwise-pointless discussion. 1) Pivot somewhere to the public option, 2) Mention Bachmann's Democratic opponent, state Sen. Tarryl Clark, and 3) Call Bachmann "crazy."
My calling Bachmann "crazy" twice irked right-wing blogger Matt Lewis, causing me to do it a 3rd time. It also seemed to turn off Alex Witt. But best of all -- hopefully out of respect -- David Schuster compared my "crazy" remark to Alan Grayson calling Republicans in Congress "neaderthals."
Let's go to the video tape:
My favorite part:
Matt Lewis: Let me just say this politically. Putting aside the issue, whether it's right or wrong, true or false, politically speaking...
Davic Schuster: It's false. Let's be clear about that.
The 9-12ers are here in DC today, "tens of thousands!" according to FOX News. While I am of course happy for them, enjoying their constitutional rights that their ideological forbears fought against (that whole Bill of Rights thing was bitterly opposed by the conservatives in the 1790s, and states' righters don't even think it applies to the states at all), I do find it odd that for such an incredible mass movement, promoted day and night by Fox News and every right wing radio host in America, they couldn't turn out more people than this. Oh, well, maybe next time.
I do worry about them though. I mean, a lot of them are older, and this anger they carry around must be terrible for the toll it takes in terms of the high blood pressure, hypertension, heart disease. They really should take a Valium like a normal person.
Oh, and I also worry about their political beliefs. If this gang of Palinista, birther, secessionist, tea bagger, scream-at-the-President-and-members-of-Congress-rant-and-raver ever took power, this country would truly be in a world of hurt- I mean we tried a slightly milder version of it from 2001 to Jan 20th of this year, and look how messed up we got.
Rachel Maddow did a superb piece on this gang of misfits and hooligans last night, which was especially fabulous because she did an interview with me you can see here. It was fun, although it's always hard to calibrate how perky to look when you are just staring into the remote camera with an earpiece in your ear. Hopefully, I didn't scare anybody. Although speaking of scaring people, my company inbox last night overflowed with angry right wingers saying, well, really angry things: calling me all kinds of names, making their usual threats, even calling me ugly (okay, you might not think one is so crazy, to each their own).
So, again, I appeal to you guys: relax, take deep breaths, maybe take your blood pressure medicine before your veins pop. I promise that after I get appointed to the death panel, all the euthanasia will be painless.
I have some fun news- I'll be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight at 9 PM EST (leading off at the top of the hour) talking about my post here at OpenLeft regarding Joe Wilson, John C. Calhoun conservatism and the modern Republican party.
And David Sirota is going on at 9:15. It's OpenLeft-tastic today at MSNBC.
(This is very brief, but very good diary for driving home some important messages that are being made on cable, as well as online. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Last week, Alan Jenkins, Executive Director of The Opportunity Agenda, co-hosted an episode of MSNBC Live. With the regular host, Carlos Watson, Alan took the opportunity to inject values into the current health care debate.
He told Carlos, "I'm surprised that Obama hasn't been telling the big story rooted in values. He was so good at that during the campaign. Candidate Obama could tie those wonky details, like the public option, to a big values based story that we could all relate to. And he really has failed to do that in this case."
Also on the show, Alan and Carlos spoke with Maya Wiley, Executive Director of the Center for Social Inclusion.
She spoke of the continued needs and disparities in New Orleans, particularly in health care, four years after Hurricane Katrina. The situation offers a concrete example of how stimulus dollars are critical for expanding opportunity.
As the debate over public health care and insurance reform has raged this August, I have seen much via the cable news outlets about how President Obama has not been able to get his message across the great partisan divide. The media has been far more interested in giving a platform to those which it describes as the "fringe." They inevitably follow up with: "Where is the clear message from President Obama?" At no time does one ever see the media turn the light upon itself and ask itself if it is doing the responsible thing. It is the very agency that should be bringing clarity to the discussion. It is the very agency who has been entrusted with the public airwaves for this very purpose.
Out of all the polls we see paraded across MSNBC, CNN etc., we have yet to see a poll rating how Americans feel the media is living up to its obligations to actually inform us. We see polls that show that Americans don't really understand the discussion, but very little regarding those who present this discussion to us. I find this to be very curious.
If these "news outlets" put half as much effort into bringing clarity to the public health care debate as it does on presenting every little bit of trivia surrounding the death of Michael Jackson, then I would imagine these other polls that we're seeing would reflect a more informed public. Of course, it doesn't help that some of the interests that oppose health care reform are the MSM's biggest advertisers. It is rare that the MSM will bite the hand that feeds it. Unfortunately it leaves the American public starving for real information to make critical choices.
STATE BLOGS
