SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (116928)10/5/2007 7:32:22 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362769
 
Jeff Cohen: Pundit Elite Enraptured by Hillary's 'Flawless Campaign'
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 3:04pm. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Jeff Cohen

The satirical video short "Harlan McCraney, Presidential Speechalist" offers a comedic explanation of why George W. Bush comes off to many Americans as an inarticulate, even stupid politician. It's intentional: There's "a genius behind the stupidity" - speechalist McCraney (played by Andy Dick), a consultant who coaches Bush to come off as a misspoken, folksy everyman.

So while many of us see an ill-equipped president not up to the job, there's McCraney off-stage, exclaiming "Yes!" and pumping his fist in victory as Bush mangles the "Fool Me Once" aphorism.

A similar dichotomy exists as many of us watch Hillary Clinton in TV interviews or Democratic debates. We see a politician vacillating to the point of self-parody, talking out of both sides of her mouth on issue after issue. "Her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze," observed Barbara Ehrenreich. "Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right."

But that's not how elite pundits see it. Powerful media voices praise a "flawless campaign" and declare that Clinton has "won every debate." They enthuse that she's "never off-message" and "doesn't make mistakes."

I imagine a bunch of Harlan McCraneys in the Clinton campaign, scripting her long-winded non-responses to please first and foremost the D.C. political press corps -- with enough doubletalk to avoid offending the Democratic Party base.

Democratic activists who want their party to forthrightly move the country toward peace and justice may be frustrated by Clinton's mumbo jumbo and non-answer answers, but the privileged, unelected (never term-limited) punditocracy finds those same answers to be brilliant.

The reality is that Clinton and the pundit clique (with a spectrum from conservative Republican to conservative Democrat, from GE to GM) are largely in sync in holding positions that are not only unpopular among Democrats, but also unpopular among the public at large.

To obscure this reality, Clinton keeps issuing doubletalk, and corporate media keep cheering.

Beltway pundits know that most of our country wants out of Iraq, and they seem to like it when Clinton offers the antiwar base rhetorical teases ("If we in Congress don't end this war by January 2009, as President, I will!") -- while the laptop warriors in the media know damn well she'll prolong for years an occupation that none of their kids are dying in.

National pundits -- whose jobs can't be outsourced overseas -- know that most of the public opposes corporate-written trade deals such as NAFTA. They like it when Clinton deftly implies she may change course ("I believe in pro-American trade") -- knowing full well that Clinton and her corporate backers are as blindly worshipful of "free trade" as they in the national press corps.

Polls show that most Americans want government-provided national health insurance. Pundits applaud Clinton's cautious talk of incremental healthcare reform that keeps big bureaucratic private insurance firms at the center of the system, a status quo that will never work for most Americans but suits the well-insured pundit elite just fine.

I know a bit about mainstream punditry, having been a talking head on cable news for years until I was muzzled on the eve of the Iraq War. While millions of Americans vocally opposed an invasion of Iraq, the few TV voices who supported those millions were marginalized or silenced. I spoke for a majority of Americans when I advocated national health insurance and opposed corporate trade deals -- but within the pundit club, I was a fringe minority.

Given the conservative tilt of the punditocracy, it doesn't surprise me that many in the media are seeking to anoint Clinton as the Democratic nominee, or that they (including at Fox News) tend to side with her in disputes with Edwards or Obama.

I'm old enough to remember that while corporate media exploited and savaged (perhaps partly in envy) Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior, they liked most of his appointees and policies -- especially his corporate-oriented "New Democratic" approach to economics.

It will be up to grassroots Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire and other early states -- not the 40 Wealthiest Pundits on Forbes' list -- to determine their party's nominee. Democratic voters can choose to insulate themselves from media coronations and preferences, ignore distractions such as Edwards' haircuts and Obama's missing American flag pin, and reject the prodding of a pundit elite that has been wildly wrong on everything from invading Iraq to the impact of NAFTA.

If not, I'm glad I won't be backstage in Iowa next January to see the Harlan McCraneys in Hillary Clinton's camp high-fiving each other.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION



To: geode00 who wrote (116928)11/11/2007 12:22:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362769
 
Rudy and Bernie: B.F.F.’s
_____________________________________________________________

By GAIL COLLINS
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
November 10, 2007

The past seven years have given us some helpful hints on what we want to avoid in the next president. I’m starting to make a list.

Quality to avoid No. 1: Loyalty.

Whenever you read that a candidate “values loyalty above all else” — run for the hills. Loyalty is a terribly important consideration if you’re choosing a pet, but not a cabinet member.

How about if this time we try for a president who would recruit gifted people who can accomplish great things, as opposed to a room full of dopes who will never write tell-all memoirs?

Loyalty is on our mind today because of the indictment of Bernard Kerik, the really, really loyal former New York City police commissioner. Rudy Giuliani, who was entirely responsible for Kerik’s meteoric rise from mayoral chauffeur, has not seemed to draw any great lessons from his protégé’s spectacular fall. Giuliani did say that he made a “mistake in not clearing him effectively enough,” which sounds as if he is kicking himself for not sending a second squad of detectives out to interview Kerik’s neighbors. In fact, the lapse in the “clearing” procedure involved Giuliani ignoring the city investigations commissioner when he arrived with the news that Kerik was involved with a company suspected of having ties to organized crime.

Giuliani claims not to remember this moment in the vetting process, which seems sort of strange for a guy who made his career prosecuting the mafia and those-who-had-ties. The former mayor does, however, have a bad memory. We know this because he obtained an annulment of his 14-year-long first marriage on the grounds that he had forgotten that his wife was his second cousin.

On the terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001, Kerik was with the mayor as Giuliani left the disaster at ground zero, searching for a telephone to contact the outside world. Also loyally at the mayor’s side were three deputy mayors, the fire commissioner and the head of the Office of Emergency Management. They all walked north, in a little command-clump, intent on the central mission of protecting their main man. You would have thought, really, that the protecting job could have been done by youthful aides while the alleged leaders tended to the fire, emergency and police problems downtown.

But if anybody had stayed behind, focusing on the wider city rather than the man who had plucked them all out of obscurity and given them everything they had, how would he know they were loyal? The ties forged in that clump of commanders catapulted them into extremely well-paying jobs in the firm of Giuliani Partners and convinced the mayor to propose Bernard Kerik as the next chief of the Department of Homeland Security, a position for which he was approximately as well qualified as I am to be quarterback for the New England Patriots.

Giuliani had a great police commissioner, Bill Bratton, during his first term when all the critical crime-fighting apparatus for which the administration became so famous was put into place. But Bratton was not particularly loyal, in the sense that he did his job well, then enjoyed taking credit for it himself. And so he was gone.

There is an entire chapter in Rudy Giuliani’s famous book “Leadership” that is titled “Loyalty, the Vital Virtue.” In it, he pats himself on the back for making a man named Robert Harding the city’s budget director even though he knew the ever-feckless news media would point out that Harding’s father, Ray, was the chairman of the city’s Liberal Party, whose endorsement had done a great deal to get Giuliani elected mayor. “I wasn’t going to choose a lesser candidate simply to quiet the critics,” he said.

For some mysterious reason, the book skips over a much better loyalty lesson involving the very same family. Giuliani demonstrated his loyalty to Ray Harding, giver of the Liberal Party endorsement, not only by giving his qualified son a good job, but also by turning over the New York City Housing Development Corporation to another son, Russell, who wound up embezzling more than $400,000 for vacations, gifts and parties. We will not even go into the pornography part, except to point out in his defense that of the 15,000 sexually explicit images found on his computer, only a few were of children.

The Giuliani version of loyalty, which bears a terrifying resemblance to the George W. Bush brand of loyalty, is entirely about self-protection. An administration safe beneath the loyalty cone does not have to worry much about leaks to the press, or even whistle-blowing.

People can screw up, or fail to achieve their missions, knowing the guy at the top will protect them as long as they put his well-being ahead of anything else. When disaster strikes, the whole world may be falling apart, but they will all be clumped together, walking north.



To: geode00 who wrote (116928)12/9/2007 6:22:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362769
 
When Does Impeachment Become A Matter Of Survival?

opednews.com



To: geode00 who wrote (116928)1/5/2008 12:51:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 362769
 
Is Barack Obama a Progressive?

Not only is he progressive, but he's the MOST progressive of anyone running for president according to his life time record as compiled by the authoritative National Journal:

mydd.com

He's been ranked to the left of even Kucinich, and he and Kucinich were the only dems running for president who opposed the war in Iraq when it mattered; before the war took place.