Factchecking ought to be an everyday part of each journalist’s job, but instead it’s relegated to a specialty feature. Maybe lack of regular practice explains why those side efforts are so disappointing.
Take Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post‘s piece (6/21/12) on Barack Obama’s latest ad critical of presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Kessler gives the ad “four Pinocchios”—reserved for the most deceptive statements: “On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of ‘corporate raider’ to its examples of alleged outsourcing.”
Kessler was defiant when Talking Points Memo (6/22/12) asked him how he squared his harsh criticism of Obama’s ad for complaining that Romney shipped jobs overseas with the Washington Post news article (6/21/12) published the same day as his factchecking piece, headlined “Romney’s Bain Capital Invested in Companies That Moved Jobs Overseas.” Was his colleague Tom Hamburger a quadruple Pinocchio too?
Kessler explained the difference between absolute lying and high-quality Washington Post–style journalism: “To be clear, there is a distinction between saying someone is responsible for shipping jobs overseas (the ad) and saying someone invested in companies that specialized in helping companies subcontract work to overseas factories (Tom’s story).” Ah, that’s perfectly clear.
The ad’s use of the phrase “corporate raider” seem to particularly incense Kessler:
The phrase “corporate raider” has a particular meaning in the world of finance…. This is generally an adversarial stance, in which an investor sees an undervalued asset and forces management to spin off assets, take the company private or break it up.
In a previous life, The Fact Checker covered renowned corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn and his ilk. We also have closely studied Bain Capital and can find no examples that come close to this situation; its deals were done in close association with management.
See, you can only call someone a “corporate raider” if management objected to the raid; if it’s only workers who feel raided, then you have to call him a “private equity executive” or some such.
Except it seems like a lot of people in politics and journalism don’t have the same understanding of the phrase that Kessler does. He claims that the White House could only come up with a single example of its use in relation to Romney, from Reuters, and Reuters says it has no idea how that slipped in. I assume, though, that The Fact Checker knows how to use Nexis; if he looks for “corporate raider” and “Romney,” he’ll find hundreds of examples all on his own.
Most of these are attributed to Romney’s political opponents in both the Democratic and Republican parties—a bipartisan consensus that I would think would carry some water with the Washington Post. But there are numerous examples of journalists—both commentators and news reporters—using it in their own voice:
In the course of buying up troubled companies and turning them around, he utilized the bloodless traits of the corporate raider.
—Tom Fiedler, Miami Herald (10/24/94)That is not surprising for a Bain Capital corporate raider whose main line of work is to take over companies and then squeeze them for profit.
—John Vennochi, Boston Globe (4/4/02)His campaign has made little secret about feeling the need for Romney to shed the corporate-raider image that plagued his U.S. Senate campaign in 1994.
—Rick Klein, Boston Globe (9/26/02)The fearmongers on the campaign went after Gov.-elect Mitt Romney for being a slash-and-burn corporate raider.
But when it comes to dense government bureaucracy and redundant administrative functions, a knife and a torch may be just what the taxpayers ordered.
—Cosmo Macero Jr., Boston Herald (11/25/02)It is a photo of six corporate raiders, grinning and brandishing dollar bills to underline the success of their company. And none is preppier, more handsome and more delighting in his trade than the man the middle—who just happens, 20 years later, to be front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
—Rupert Cornwell, London Independent (10/15/11)Perry unleashed the class-warfare barb at Romney, who made millions as a corporate raider, because Romney once called such schemes a boon for “fat cats.”
—S.A. Miller, New York Post, 10/26/11He looks like the corporate raider he was—the one who will turn a company upside-down if that’s what it takes.
—Mike Littwin, Denver Post (12/4/11)
What a bunch of Pinocchios—right, Mr. Kessler?
Now, if Kessler were talking about the hypocrisy of criticism about outsourcing …
Backdoor Talks on Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Aim to Globalize Corporatocracy
by Michelle Chen
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/21-10
Doug: I read that 600 lobbyists are in on this deal and the American people have no idea what’s being negotiated in their name. Corporatism has risen to the point where there’s not even an attempt to include the public in something this important.
If Friedman were alive, he’d be doing the dance of joy.
Elaine, there’s never any “partisan gridlock” when it comes to the gravy train, is there?
All aboard the Exploitation Express!
Uncle Miltie’s wet dream aims to drown us all.
Class warfare has been practiced by Mitt his whole adult life. Bain is just an example of his lack of concern for the working class. Any non-Billionaire who supports this criminal is destroying their own future!
It’s nothing short of amazing that four short years after the 2008 financial crash, in the middle of a depression caused by that crash, that a Wall Street raider is running for President. That seems more unlikely than Barack Obama’s becoming President in 2009. Even most Tea Partiers don’t like bankers, at least until Fox News improbably started calling them Job Creators anyway, which of course is the polar opposite of what they are.
And Barack Obama is not a Wall Street raider? He is a torjan horse for the 1%. The ruling elite’s choice to elect a black man for president right after the crash of 2008 was the most clever Machiavellian tactic. It passified the progressives who still apologize for him after all that he has and hasn’t done.
FreeSpirit: Any serious presidential candidate who comes before us, has already been vetted by the 1%, IMHO. Anyone who isn’t, is (in one way or another) ultimately disparaged by the maintream media.
There is so much money in politics now that many politicians can’t win a seat without it. The opponent–who takes the money– runs ads 24/7 against the other fellow and the sheeple believe it, if they hear it enough times.
Not apologizing for Obama but at least he appears to have put two sane people on the Supreme Court, unlike the other corporate, activist, frightening ideologues who sit there.
Elaine, Let’s see… Two sane people on the Supreme Court versus:
Keeping Guantanamo prison open
Not going after the Bush administration war criminals
Giving trillions away to the 1% and not a penny to the average Joe
Not prosecuting a single person responsible for the 2008 crash
Pretending to end the war in Iraq while leaving thousands of mercenaries behind
Continuing the war in Afghanistan and expanding into at least two other countries
Expanding drone attacks (extra-judicial assassinations) and indiscriminate murder of by-standers
NDAA (abolition of the 800 year Anglo-American legal tradition of Habeas Corpus)
Assassination of anyone anywhere, including US Citizens
Assassination of Osama Bin Laden (as opposed to a Nuremburg style trial)
Imprisoning more whistle-blowers than any other president including Manning and Assange
Deporting more undocumented people than any other president in recent history
Passing a sham healthcare act and keeping single-payer off the table even for discussion
Shredding what’s left of the constitution
Continuing to kiss Israel’s ass despite their human rights violations
Etc. etc. etc.
If Obama was a decent human being he would be holding fire-side talks like FDR or his hero (Reagan) to tell people about the problem with our campaign finance, not continuing to go along with it.
I will be voting my conscience from now on.
FreeSpirit: Excellent comment, and to me, your last item was the kicker. I don’t know whether Obama is a coward, as several others here have concluded, but as a leader, he is certainly a failure. There is no excuse for a President who campaigned as he did not to bring his case before the people. During the first two years of his administration, with Democratic majorities in both houses and the country drifting in a sea of media misinformation, Obama just went along for the ride. No American President has ever been such a disappointment to his constituency. He’s a leader totally incapable of leading, and I for one will not vote for him again.
If the Democratic Party can’t come up with a qualified candidate (Hillary? Joe Biden? a competent governor or congressperson?) I’ll vote for the Green Party candidate or maybe just move to another country.
Odd how this “Democratic majority in both houses” meme fails to deal with a Senate minority dedicated from day one to destroying the Obama presidency and having the Senate rules to back their play. Weak Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate lead to the failure of the “Change” agenda. Reid could have changed the Senate rules on cloture and Pelosi could have pushed “medicare for all” – alas, their failure to lead is really further proof of corporate rule. If Romney is elected, we may end up with Santorum or Gingrich, or John Yoo, or all three on the SCOTUS. So vote Green, or don’t vote at all is equivalent to giving to America a SCOTUS pro corporations, anti-choice, anti-worker, anti-green, anti-universal healthcare. Now there’s an antidote to Change.
Free Spirit/John Q.: Are you telling me that Obama has done nothing right? Surely, you are aware that he has to deal with a totally hostile Republican party and the Blue Dogs within his own party.
No, I’m really not making excuses. I, too, am disappointed in certain neoliberal policies and unfulfilled promises. I will be the first to admit it.
Was the loss of a public option in health care, for example, completely Obama’s doing? I don’t know….I really don’t…….especially when Joe Lieberman teamed up with Blue Dog Dems and Republicans to defeat it. Did it have a chance? But we do have some good things that came out of the Affordable Care Act–ending lifetime and yearly caps, ending the ability of insurance companies to drop patients who become too sick or have pre-existing conditions, insuring millions more, allowing preventative services, eventually ending the donut hole for Medicare recipients, establishing state health insurance exchanges by Jan. 1, 2014 (which some Republicans refuse to cooperate with in their own particular state), insisting that 80% of one’s premium must go to health care and not to insurance profits, etc. The first major reforms in 100 years. What’s the Republican alternative besides voucherizing Medicare?
Is it Obama alone who can bring Wall St. to justice? Isn’t that also the job of the SEC and other regulatory agencies which have had their budgets cut significantly by Republicans? You see, when Republicans don’t want something to work, they simply starve it to death. Republicans are still resisting the implementation of Dodd-Frank, expecially the separation of commercial and investment banks.
According to the CBO, the stimulus bill which Republicans hammer away as a failure did create millions of jobs and I’ll take the word of the CBO which is non-partisan. The number is unclear to me–1.3 million to 3.3 millio jobs. We have tens of thousands of bridges, water/sewer systems which are approaching 100 years of age and electrical grids which needs to be up-dated, etc. We need another stimulus but Republicans cry “fiscal irresponsibility” while fighting like dogs for more tax cuts for the rich and more military spending. I support a second stimulus.
The bailouts? This is another issue I wrestle with. Should Obama have allowed too-big-to-fail banks to go under, taking with them pension funds, savings, 401(k)s and many other investments? What would you do or I? It’s the “too-big-to-fail” banks that it seems to me should be broken up (my opinion only–I’m not an economist) because when they are too-big-to-fail, what happens if they are, indeed, permitted to fail? I believe conditions should have been attached to those bail-outs and perhaps I should fault Obama for that but it’s interesting to note that last time I checked, Wall St. gave about 33 billion to Romney’s campaign and less than 4 billion to Obama’s. Why?
Obama supported a Consumer Protection Bureau which Republicans are underfunding. as well. He increased the Veterans Affairs budget, significant due to the number of troops coming home with lifetime disabilities. So far, he has kept us out of war with Iran. He has boosted fuel efficiency standards and supports investments in clean energy, not supported by Republicans.
So, Free Spirit, you can look at one side of the coin and I grant you, you have compelling arguments but isn’t there a flip side to the coin, too?
I think that when we say Obama has done nothing right we are buying into the Republican plan of convincing everyone that he has, indeed, done nothing right. That is not the case, from my perspective.
Elaine, which of the bullet points listed by FreeSpirit are untrue? Or are these just minor “bugaboos” in your opinion?
Sorry, Elaine. It is time to take off the rose-colored goggles you found in your box of Democratic Krunch. The Democrats are not helping the 99%, and really never have. (And, please, don’t start with the hackneyed FDR New Deal program, as most of that was disarmed by 1949, and certainly by the 1980’s.)
Remember, the DP was the party of slavery and corporations for over a century, and traces its roots clear back to the British Tories. Elaine, both of these parties dominate the American political space despite representing less than a majority of Americans between the two (most Americans are independents and others, not D or R, right now). They are fed by Big Oil and Big Wall Street, just like the TV “news” you watch every night. Brian Williams is a nice-looking, seemingly intelligent, seemingly caring guy, right? When has his show given more than 5 minutes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (google it) or the Canadian-European Trade Agreement (CETA), the next steps in The New World Order’s ongoing consolidation of power?
Drink more Fair.org and therealnews.com and less MSNBC and you will start to see why people like me disagree with the tunnelvision of the DP rank-and-file.
John Q: Congratulations on seeing the truth that Free Spirit lists concerning the Obama administration. But how can you continue to support “qualified” leaders (Hillary, Joe Biden, … ?)
ANY Democrat (or Republican) who is elected to the Congress or the Executive will be owned by the same people who own Obama and owned the Bushes and Reagans and virtually every other President and Congress for the past century or so. Why would you think it would be different if the Corporate Democratic Party were to choose a different person?
It’s about the sponsorship, not the individuals. Even if one of the Democrats had the gaul to speak truth to power, they would have a lot of angry and powerful, deep-pocketed party financiers to deal with afterward. That is, if there is an “afterward” (think mysterious, unanswered assassination or disappearance).
You are almost “there,” IMO, but you must stop siding with the apologists for a rotten regime. Stop dreaming that a different or “better” Democrat will solve the problems.
Elaine said “But we do have some good things that came out of the Affordable Care Act–ending lifetime and yearly caps, ending the ability of insurance companies to drop patients who become too sick or have pre-existing conditions, insuring millions more, allowing preventative services, eventually ending the donut hole for Medicare recipients, establishing state health insurance exchanges by Jan. 1, 2014 (which some Republicans refuse to cooperate with in their own particular state), insisting that 80% of one’s premium must go to health care and not to insurance profits, etc. The first major reforms in 100 years. What’s the Republican alternative besides voucherizing Medicare?”
So you think state health insurance exchanges are a GOOD idea? Why do you want to give corporations a captive market? Doesn’t this just expand their market “territory” to those who are currently not purchasing insurance because they can’t afford it?
Elaine, what should a poor family do when they are forced to buy the health insurance (and suppose they buy the cheapest policy with highest deductibles and copays and minimal coverage) and they don’t have enough money to put food on their children’s plates? This is what is going on all over America right now and why so many people are just not buying health insurance (like me for the past 15 years). And, then, let’s say that one of their children contract a serious illness: Where does the money for the additional expenses not covered by their plan come from?
Health care spending includes other expenses besides premiums, like copays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket (non-covered) expenses. Why shouldn’t 95-97% of each health care dollar go to health care and not to insurance profits? Medicare does that already. A genuine single-payer system would achieve that. Why are you in favor of giving 20 cents of every dollar I spend on health care to corporations who do not care about me? Or do YOU not care about me either?
You ask what is the Republican answer to the health care issue. Easy: Obamacare! Yes, that’s right, Elaine. Mitt Romney, who will battle Obama for the presidency this fall, implemented the very first Obamacare system right in his own state of Massachusetts. People there call it Romneycare, a dismal failure, and probably other attributions not fit for this web site. Romneycare is the very blueprint for Obamacare. And in Massachusetts, it is deeply in debt and failing miserably — ask doctors who have to bill that system.
Want to hear an even spookier connection? Consider who Romney was challenging in the primaries: Newt Gingrich. I don’t know how old you are, but do you remember so-called “HillaryCare” in 1993 after Bill took office? This was the Clintons’ doomed attempt to implement a national health system (probably similar to the British NHS) in the U.S. Maybe you don’t; it went down faster than you could say “single payer” in 1994.
And what was the Republican’s response to Hillary Care? Gingrich Care! That’s right, Elaine, Gingrich was pushing state health insurance exchanges way back there in the 1990’s, right after the Republicans took their vows at the alter of political expediency and married the fiscal conservatives to the religious right (another, but separate, perversion that continues to destroy this country).
So here’s Gingrich, once big-time supporter for state health exchanges (which most Americans have forgotten), criticizing Romney for his own health care policy which is more-or-less the same POS as Gingrich’s idea. To Romney’s credit, at least he TRIED to implement it rather than just talking about it; of course, the results have become his archilles heel. And, then, Romney turns around and criticizes ObamaCare, which is the thrice-recycled bad idea.
But here is what is yicchier than all that. It was Bill Clinton whose health care commission came up with the idea of these health care exchanges in the first place, which was based on a position paper by some neoliberals funded by right-wing think tanks.
Soooooo. Is Obama a Democrat or a Republican? And does it really matter?
Elaine said to Doug: “I read that 600 lobbyists are in on this deal and the American people have no idea what’s being negotiated in their name. Corporatism has risen to the point where there’s not even an attempt to include the public in something this important.
If Friedman were alive, he’d be doing the dance of joy.”
Are any of these lobbyists Democrats? And under whose administration will this dirty deal be signed into law? Has the Obama adminstration openly and directly stated its opposition to this anti-worker, anti-competitive “agreement?”
No Difference: Can I tell you that I agree that we have two wings of the same bird? This is due to the enormous influence that money has in politics. My point is that Obama has done some good things as well as some things that I, too, disagree with.
If I have to choose between two corporate parties, I will go with the Democratic Party. So far, the Republican Party has offered the Ryan plan–deemed “marvelous” by Romney– which voucherizes Medicare, raises the eligibility age for it from 65 to 67, not only keeps the Bush tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest but increases tax breaks for those making a million dollars or more per year. It calls for increased military spending, (are we having another war)? even though some in the Pentagon haven’t even requested the level of spending proposed. It lowers the corporate tax rate to 25%, despite the fact that corporations paid (after loopholes, etc. were factored in) about 12% effective federal tax rate last year and sit on a two trillion dollar surplus. The Affordable Care Act is gone, though I have no idea what, if anything, takes its place. We will be locked into fossil fuels, from all that I read, rather than alternative, cleaner energy and we need to get more ‘confrontational’ with Iran.
Now how is all of this to be accomplished? By severely cutting virtually every middle class/poor program out there–food stamps, education, Pell grants, infrastructure, Medicare, Medicaid, regulatory agencies, college subsidies, etc.
For whom shall I vote? The Green Party? You do recognize that a vote for the Green Party will be a vote for the Republican party. It’s a choice between who is the worse, sad to say. The Republican party is now dominated by people who are so ideological, that it’s frightening. These people fight over birth control, for Heaven’s sake. How far back in time are we going?
Just to add….what do I want with regard to health care, NoDifference? I want Medicare for all. To say that I don’t care about anybody else, is really quite unfair. What is the Republican plan? Get rid of Medicare. Period. Medicare For None. Do I want health exchanges? I’d rather have Medicare For All! How much clearer can I make it but this is not my choice.
I am confronted with a party that has gone completely off the edge, as far as I’m concerned, (and that’s the Republican party), a party that would not even raise the debt ceiling (resulting in a drop in our credit worthiness), a party that spends its time debating birth control, abortion, and guns–that has introduced thousands of anti-abortion bills at the state level–, a party that in a heartbeat would put another Scalia on the SC, and another corporate party which seems to be saner than this.
So, really, NoDifference, if anything, I’m quite saddened.
That’s right, Elaine. Unfortunately, we need to have things get so bad even people who don’t pay attention will sit up and say, “That’s wrong, isn’t it?” That most citizens can’t determine which side of the bread their butter is on has never been more apparent. When the day comes that nobody gives a damn who’s playing in the Superbowl (or how clever the ads are during the telecast of the Big Game), that’s when we’ll know that the worm has really turned. Until then treat all ‘con politicians with scorn and always have a healthy amount of contempt for Dems who blithely take you for granted.
The latest viral e-mail: A teabagger by the name of Riddle who is running for office somewhere in Texas in The Party That Has Lost Its Mind, wants to impeach Obama for giving away seven Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea Islands near Siberia. These were ceded in 1991 under Geroge H.W. Bush.
TimN, I’ve never seen anything quite this extreme.
“The ad’s use of the phrase “corporate raider” seem to particularly incense Kessler.”
as usual, it’s not the facts, it’s the tone that gets the beltway insiders all aflutter….
plus, after all that hairsplitting in the defense of his “fact-check,” i’m amazed kessler isn’t bald.
The only reliable fact-checkers are outlets like FactCheck.org and Politifact.com, who are independent of corporate-stream media outlets.
Kessler is just another puppet of his corporate media master.
Elaine, FreeSpirit, No Difference: Despite your differences, you all might agree that things are not going to get better after the 2012 elections. Regardless of the outcome, we will still be governed by a feckless president, a nihilistic congress, and a profoundly corrupt supreme court, all of them serving a secretive militaristic oligarchy that threatens the world at large.
Meanwhile, the electoral process has been neutralized by bribing candidates, disenfranchising voters and redistricting key states, and before there is any hope of restoring it, the people will have to realize what’s going on. It’s not likely that the media will bring Ameria to its senses before November.
“….things are not going to get better….” The Party That Lost Its Mind can make things a whole lot worse, though. The Republican North Carolina Senate recently voted to outlaw the use of science to protect citizens from one of the threats of climate change: sea level rise. Therefore, if science gives you a result you don’t like, pass a law saying that the result is outlawed.
And in the great state of PA: The Party That Lost Its Mind is considering deadlines for permit reviews by its state environmental agency that are so very short, that the agency can’t meet them. (Budget cuts in the dept. also put in place to assure that). If the agency can’t meet them, they’re automatically approved–of course. Also considered–outsourcing permit review–I say we let the polluters review the permits!
In the Congress, the House voted 170 times (according to the database) to weaken environmental laws–unprecedented attacks on Clean Air Act, clean energy initiatives and climate change.
Yes, it can get worse. Give them all branches of government.
Elaine:
Hitler, Stalin, the Czars, and numerous others did many bad things, but they also did a lot of very good things. For instance, Hitler brought Germany the Volkswagen (his own design as I am told) and the Autobahn, not to mention millions of jobs thanks to his wartime industries. Unfortunately, these programs rested on focusing the public’s hatred on minorities, kind of like we are doing here in the US. So, would I still want to vote for Hitler? I don’t think so…
Again, Elaine, which of the items that FreeSpirit listed are excusable acts — by omission or commission — by the Obama administration? I cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils because somewhere, someone will be hurt. In the case of Obama, these have been innocent Hondurans, Palestinians, Egyptians, Greeks, Irish, Spaniards, and others who have been subject to draconian economic sanctions with the backing of the US Government, if not outright violence and bloodshed.
No, I can’t vote for that lesser evil, and I will never.
We have a troll on this site.
A rarely disagree very much with Elaine, but while her arguments for voting for the lessor of two evils are sound, so are comments here that argue for not doing so (apart from the laughable reference to Hitler). November is still a long way off, and unless the Green or some other third party manages to get its at together and be heard, I suppose it will be best to vote for the thoroughly incompetent Mr. Obama, whose greatest achievement and worst achievement is the passage of a health care law after congressional hearings refused to hear proponents of a single payer system.
The FAIR troll, who is all by himself way out there in right field, has yet to comment on this posting.
Only the most stalwart apologists for the DP are unable to see that voting for the lesser of two evils is moving this country to the right which will soon end us up with a fascist government. The clouds are already forming. We see an ever increasingly militarized police force that treats peaceful demonstrators with a heavy hand. Laws are being passed by none other than our debonair President that pave the way for spying on, imprisoning without trial, and executing US citizens. They are now adding drones to the existing arsenal of police forces across the country. Who do you think all this is for, Al Qaeda?!
Voting for the DP is only going to delay the inevitable. What do we do then when we reach the point (very soon) where we can look to neither party to act slightly more civilized?
We must act now while there is time. Voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all is “a vote against the system”. Yes, it may hand the country over to rabid Republicans in the short run. But as more and more stop voting for the tools of the ruling elite, the system will lose its legitimacy. When an election is won with a 10-20% vote, the system cannot be justified and a critical mass will be formed towards an overhaul.
Voting for the DP now is a vote for the legitimacy of the system. Is that the message we want to send each other?
Free Spirit: I’m impressed that you can predict the future with such certainty, that all we need do is hand the country over to rabid Republicans (and dangerous ideologues)…in the short run only…….? that the system will lose its legitimacy(after these dangerous ideologues are through with us), and then a “critical mass will be formed towards an overhaul.” Didn’t know it would be that easy.
BTW, this has nothing to do with being a stalwart apologist.
I’m basing my predictions on the political projectile of this country, and history. At the least, if I’m wrong, I will not have voted for an illegitimate party.
FreeSpirit: We will have to agree to disagree. Stand on principle and send a message to the system. Don’t vote or join the 3% who are likely to vote for a third party this time around. We can only hope that if the Republicans get in office, things will get so bad that the system will eventually lose its legitimacy at some point in time, and a critical mass will overhaul it.
Elaine, jerry s, Jeff Thompson, FreeSpirit, Afterthought, No Difference: Whether you agree with each other no not, your comments on this posting display the most clearheaded understanding of the depraved state of America that I have seen.
When I was in college in the 70’s, I often wondered how I would have acted if I lived during Nazi Germany. I would like to think that I would have spoken up. I think I would have because I’m speaking up now. For those of us who live here in the US, this country is not Nazi Germany yet, but for my bothers and sisters in my side of the world it is. The ultra-nationalist US government is behaving like Nazi occupiers of France, Poland, and Austria in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is starving my relatives and friends in Iran for no reason at all. For the people over where I grew up the United States IS Nazi Germany. And if I continue to vote for people like Obama, knowing what he is cynically doing just for re-election or to suck up to his Wall Street war-profiteering buddies, I would need to take three showers a day to wash the guilt and filth away…
Free Spirit: I agree. These things sicken me, too. It’s not that I think the Dem Party is so much better. It’s that I believe the Republican Party is so much worse. I can’t even call it a party. It’s more like some sort of cult where if one’s belief system conflicts with the science or the facts, throw out the science and the facts.
Back about 20-25 years ago, there were party disagreements but it seemed as though compromises could be reached. Now Mitch McConnell proudly proclaims that his first job is to make sure Obama doesn’t get a second term. His first job is not to help us but to get a Republican in the White House and to that end, “NO” is said to everything Obama proposes.
Scalia just smacked down the president with his partisan rhetoric (and his reaffirmation of Citizens United). This right wing hack is what Republicans put on the Supreme Court for years to come. These decisions have profound influences on our lives. Even the SC is compromised. Can you picture another Scalia on the SC?
BTW, Wall St has turned against Obama because they’re afraid he’ll end the Bush tax cuts. They are pouring billions into Romney’s campaign.
FreeSpirit: You have family/friends in Iran? Please read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?pagewanted=all
Romney and Netanyahu may be friends. But I have never seen a US President kiss Israel’s ass as much as Obama! When it comes to foreign policy, there is categorically and absolutely no difference between the two parties. They are both wings of the same ruthless empire.
I would generally agree with Elaine–the Republicans are like a kind of super-monied cult, run by greedy sociopaths in the service of even greedier sociopaths. But the Supreme Court? I’d remind everyone that Joe Biden sponsored and saw to it that one of the most corrupt and imbecilic right-wingers alive got on the Court–Clarence Thomas. Also, the Democrats in the Senate routinely pretend to be upset with the extreme views of reactionaries like Alito and Roberts, but then they vote for them anyway. Very, very few Senators have the scruples to do what’s right, and in the end, what difference is there between Lindsey Graham and virtually any Dem when they both vote to install a partisan hack onto the Court? If Romney were to win, and the Dems keep their majority in the Senate, I guarantee you that the Dems, out of fear of being partisan, will vote for even a noticeably right-wing jurist; they’ll blather on about how he’s really a moderate, etc., but they won’t rock the boat. Way too much time and effort are invested in building a cult of personality around the President, when fixing the broken branches is just as important, maybe more important.
“we need to have things get so bad even people who don’t pay attention will sit up and say, “That’s wrong, isn’t it?”
This is the dumbest reason I’ve ever heard for letting evil have its way. Do you think for a second that if the Republicans get power again they will ever give it up? They’re already working on stealing another election because people couldn’t be bothered to vote in 2010, a redistricting year. If they consolidate that power, they will be sure you are too busy not starving to revolt.
And by the way, remember that bringing Hitler into any discussion is to immediately lose any credibility whatsoever.
Elaine has a lot of good, well thought out points. I always admire her clear head and the fact that she has been doing her homework. I’m conflicted too. As much as Obama has done many things I disagree with and dislike, the vision I have of a Romney presidency is filled with more terrible things than Obama could possibly even dream of. Romney clearly tells us that he will go to war against Iran; Obama I’m not so sure. (He clearly dislikes Netanyahu and being out from under another run for office might bring out a different Obama.) Romney is so intertwined with big business that his term will be filled with give aways to corporate power. Already we are a nation run by corporations and not the desires of the people. This has been happening for years beginning with Nixon. Reagan was in their pocket and while he said a lot of pretty things, he was not sincere. His heart was with corporate America and the dismantling of regulations. Both sides have happily put people into our financial regulatory offices who will gladly screw anyone who has only a modest income. That’s been going on for a long, long time. But electing Romney. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet folks. Having Dick Cheney run the country was bad enough. Wonder who will be the puppet master for Romney? Anyone know? And who will he pick for VP? Lot’s of questions and very few answers.
John Q: You are right that my reference to Hitler is laughable. That was my whole point, though (somehow I think you know I was writing that tongue-in-cheek). The trouble is that people with the mindset similar to that expressed by Elaine — who in most cases, I think, simply aren’t looking at the bigger picture of the whole world at large — continue to perform their regular and predictable duties as apologists for this (and other) evil administration. For some reason, they cannot discern between what is best for the world and ALL of its people and what might benefit a few in the short term, ostensibly stop-gap measures while the administration works on the “real” solutions.
I still have not heard Elaine — or any of the other Obama apologists — defend any of the points in FreeSpirit’s list of egregious and arrogantly undemocratic actions taken by this administration. The fact that some of these conditions existed before the current administration is hardly any sort of sensible excuse for allowing them to continue; actually, they only underscore how much these administrations’ actions (or lack thereof) run afoul of truly democratic policies. The fact that one was Republican and the next Democrat only emphasizes how little these two oligarchical political parties differ.
It may be a fact (and probably is a fact) that Obama cannot do much to dislodge the entrenched right wing that rules this country and the world. But further propagandization of the Democratic Party as some sort of cure for what ails us is misleading and dangerous; at this point, we have all seen enough of this nonsense. Nothing changes from one administration to the next, even and perhaps especially when a Democrat arrives in the White House.
If Obama ever genuinely intended to help the American People or the Peoples and environments of the world over, he must be working in the wrong type of organization. I do not believe any politician will have the support for progressive economic and environmental policy in either of these corrupt, pro-corporate, profit-driven parties.
Is it just possible that our situation is horribly and terribly bleak as it stands and as it has stood now for decades and arguably centuries, and that rather than hauling out the same old defenses of anti-democratic policies, perhaps a better conversation is to be had involving achievable tactics and strategies for building a movement toward real leftist/progressive/socialist policy? (I have ideas on this if there is an audience for them.)
Oh, and Elaine: It seems that in the context of political forums such as this, a [i]troll[/i] is described a bit differently than its use on technical forums. A troll in a technical forum, where that term was originally applied, refers to any number of different issues: It could be someone differing on their opinion of some software package, varying approaches to developing software, or even just mean and annoying people who sort of lurk and strategically crap offensive remarks here and there to annoy the others.
In a political forum, “troll” usually refers to a poster whose opinion contradicts the expected narrative of the other posters there. And there are many reasons why someone like me might be labeled troll, the most common of which is when stark reality is expressed that contradicts the assumptions made to build some argument or defense of one venerated institution or another. For instance, try to post a sensible, fact-based, logical remark about our military in your local newspaper’s comment section. You’ll be attacked from ten directions; if you try to dispute them, they will pull out their box of nationalist hankies and cry a river for those who gave their lives and therefore how we must all respect the military. It becomes emotional, not rational, doubling down for more murder and destruction for fear of “offending” those who have [i]already[/i] lost their loved ones.
I refuse to accept your(pl.) narrative of Obama/Clinton/Democratic Party as the salvation of this countries underclass. There is no such thing as equality or democracy only for some. Equality is not the opposite of privilege, and they cannot be quantified under the same classification system.
Please tell me, for example, how do you defend the Obama administration’s ongoing support/recognition for the Junta that rules Honduras?