A Gentleman’s view.

The dirty game of politics played by gangsters with degrees cloaked in Brooks Brothers proper!

Archive for the ‘Media’


His Dream… MLK

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Share

Let’s Get Ready To Rumble SC!

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Mitt Romney says he’s ready for an uphill climb in South Carolina after coasting through New Hampshire. As the Republican presidential contest moves south, his rivals are sharpening their attacks and hoping to win over tea partyers and religious conservatives who feel uncomfortable with the front-runner.

Still, Romney continued to project a confident style Wednesday that must be wearing on his five opponents. He dismissed much of their criticism as stemming from desperation. And he said that while several can raise enough campaign money to keep the nomination fight going, “I expect them to fall by the wayside eventually for lack of voters.”

Despite the rougher tone and tougher ideological terrain ahead, the former Massachusetts governor is looking to force his opponents from the race by achieving a four-state streak with victories in South Carolina on Jan. 21 and Florida 10 days later. He posted a double-digit win Tuesday night in New Hampshire after a squeaker the week before in Iowa – making him the first non-incumbent Republican in a generation to pull off the back-to-back feat.

“Tonight we celebrate. Tomorrow we go back to work,” Romney told a raucous victory party in Manchester, N.H., probably mindful of the minefields that South Carolina held for him four years ago when he failed to win over Republicans skeptical of his Mormon faith and reversals on some social issues. “We are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire.”

All the candidates planned to campaign in the state Wednesday. Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman were flying in from New Hampshire. They’ll join Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who didn’t invest much time in New Hampshire while putting his post-Iowa focus on South Carolina.

Several of Romney’s rivals have made clear they will seek to undercut the chief rationale of his candidacy: that his experience in private business makes him the strongest Republican to take on President Barack Obama on the economy in the fall. Perry, for one, is accusing Romney of “vulture capitalism” that led to job losses in economically distressed South Carolina.

Romney said his opponents sound like Democrats attacking the free enterprise system and encouraging jealousy toward the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

 

“It’s a very envy-oriented attack,” he said Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” show.

Romney said the criticism of his past dealings actually works to his benefit by highlighting the business acumen that will help him set the nation’s economy right and shrink the federal government.

TV ads already are filling the airwaves, including negative spots like a new one from Gingrich assailing Romney for switching his position on an issue that resonates strongly with evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP here.

“He governed pro-abortion,” the Gingrich ad says. “Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney: He can’t be trusted.”

About $3.5 million already has been spent on TV ads in South Carolina, the bulk of it by Perry and a supportive super PAC. But that doesn’t count the $3.4 million a pro-Gingrich group has pledged to spend to go after Romney, or the $2.3 million a pro-Romney group plans to spend in the coming days. Santorum and a super PAC friendly to him also are pouring money into the state, as is an outside group working on Huntsman’s behalf.

Expect a flood of more hard-hitting commercials – primarily aimed at the front-runner – in a state known for brass-knuckled Republican politics.

Romney, for his part, is dismissing the attacks, most notably the ones over his time at Bain Capital.

“President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him,” Romney said in his victory speech, chastising his critics while acting as though he is already the nominee. “This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation.”

“The country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy,” Romney added.

For all of Romney’s challenges, the presence of a cluster of socially conservative candidates fighting to be his chief alternative could work in his favor by splitting the vote on the party’s right flank. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and others split the faith-focused vote in Iowa. South Carolina also has a large contingent of evangelical voters, some of whom remain suspicious of Romney.

“I don’t know if we can win South Carolina, I was fourth there last time I ran,” Romney said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America. “I know it’s an uphill battle.”

But Romney noted that he carried the conservative and tea party vote in South Carolina.

Unlike New Hampshire, South Carolina could end up being the last stop for some candidates.

Perry, for one, has had back-to-back dismal showings, and is dismissing the earlier contests as inconsequential as he looks to right his struggling campaign in South Carolina.

“They kind of start separating the wheat from the chaff, if you will,” Perry told a cafe crowd Tuesday. “But South Carolina picks presidents.”

Gingrich, the former Georgia lawmaker, is also playing on his regional ties.

“The ideal South Carolina fight would be a Georgia conservative versus a Massachusetts moderate,” he said, echoing a theme central to his fierce ads.

Santorum and Huntsman also have vowed to press on in the face of Romney’s latest victory. Santorum wants to claim the conservative mantle; Huntsman eschews ideological labels and is selling himself as someone who can heal a polarized nation.

“Third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentleman,” Huntsman boomed from the lectern after finishing third in New Hampshire. “Hello, South Carolina.”

___

Associated Press writers Shannon McCaffrey and Beth Fouhy in New Hampshire and Connie Cass in Washington contributed to this report.

Share

Where We Go From N.H.

1) Mitt Romney haters enter the final stages of grief

Yes, everyone knew he was going to win. Yes, it was his neighbor state. And yes, he still has well-documented flaws.

But Romney made history as a non-incumbent Republican who has now won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and from here on, he will be hard to stop.

Romney exceeded his own vote share from the 2008 primary, when he came in second. He also was on track to finish the night pretty close to the 38 percent of the vote that John McCain got in that race, when he won the state.

Best of all, he was poised for a margin of victory exceeding 12 points.

According to exit polls, the former Massachusetts governor did well across the ideological spectrum, making it hard to point to an area of weakness in his vote total. And Romney seemed comfortable in his speech, even addressing “rivals” over the criticism of his time at Bain Capital (a remark that’s really only a reference to Newt Gingrich) and basking in his supporters’ applause.

Having survived the evangelicals of Iowa and the famously ornery independents of New Hampshire, Romney now heads into South Carolina with momentum, making him the person undecided voters are likelier to tilt toward.

Romney backers aren’t certain he’ll fare well in the Palmetto State, where he’s facing his first crush of negative ads. It’s not clear how the spots dinging him for his tenure at Bain Capital will play in a GOP primary — as opposed to a general election (although Democrats will also be banging him from the left on that topic simultaneously, and it’s not good for Romney to have members of his own party negatively defining him on his signature credential issue).

2) Jon Huntsman’s surge was real

It may have fallen short of the second place he seemed headed for. But Huntsman went from cellar-dweller in the polls to third place in a matter of about two weeks, a rise that earns him some measure of respect.

It also justifies his decision to keep going, at least through South Carolina and, if he can depress Romney’s vote total from the center and add to a sense of chaos in the race, even into Florida.

That may be wishful thinking on the part of Huntsman’s camp, which had spent months living in New Hampshire in the hopes of getting hot, only to see it finally start happening in the final days of the race. Interestingly, it only happened once the rest of the candidates arrived in the Granite State en masse.

He wasn’t as close to Ron Paul as he would have liked to have been — he was running five points behind him — but he still had a respectable finish.

What Huntsman has lacked is resources — his campaign has been on fumes for months, and the candidate himself has expressed a public reluctance to go beyond the $2 million he seeded his effort with earlier this year.

His boosters hope that his surprising third-place finish will help bring in some more financial support, but there’s still not much evidence he has a path to the nomination.

At a minimum, his vote share gives him a bit of a cleaner slate heading into 2016, the next presidential cycle and the one that many political insiders suspect he’s already eyeing.

3) The GOP cannot ignore Ron Paul

This is the second contest in which Paul, ignored for much of the cycle until polls showed him clearly moving up, has finished north of 20 percent.

And unlike Iowa, where he finished third, Paul came in second in New Hampshire.

While he is not poised to grab a major contest — and truly rattle the establishment in the process — the Texas congressman is also not someone the party is going to be able to ignore heading toward the convention in Tampa.

What exactly the ultimate paying of respects looks like remains to be seen. Party officials are unlikely to be completely warm to the idea of giving him a prime speaking slot at the convention.

Paul’s supporters may bristle at the idea of giving in to something less than optimal. On the other hand, Paul’s son Rand — the junior senator from Kentucky — is believed to have ambitions of his own, which might come into play in any negotiations down the road.

All of this, of course, is a long way off. But it is increasingly a backdrop to the Paul phenomenon.

4) There is no clear conservative anti-Romney heading into South Carolina

Rick Santorum’s post-Iowa momentum is officially on fumes. He was tracking at just under 10 percent of the vote late into the evening.

That meant he was essentially tied with Newt Gingrich for fourth place, after the mini-primary between the two for that slot.

To head into South Carolina with any ability to argue primacy with conservatives, one of them needed to come in ahead of the other. But as of now, it’s a muddle — except for the clear fact that voters in New Hampshire largely rejected both of them.

For Santorum, that is less of an issue, theoretically — he never spent money, of which he had little, in the state.

But for Gingrich, it’s a serious blow. He was among the top finalists in the polls in the state just weeks ago — so much so that the influential Manchester Union Leader endorsed him. And while Gingrich has denounced the negative ads that were aired against him in Iowa, very little was done to him in New Hampshire by way of negative paid media, undercutting that argument a bit.

Santorum may be able to climb back in South Carolina, but for Gingrich, this is his second finish out of the top three.

All of this, of course, may work to Romney’s benefit.

5) Super PACs are more important than ever

If there is anything that will allow Gingrich to keep going past South Carolina if he fares poorly, it’s the super PAC supporting him. The same is true for Santorum and for Huntsman.

The nominally outside groups — which can’t coordinate with the campaigns but tend to hew fairly closely to their messaging — have proven influential in the final weeks of the race.

The most influential — and well-stocked — among them has been the one backing Romney, Restore Our Future, which punctured Gingrich’s poll numbers with a series of searing and effective negative spots in Iowa about the former House speaker’s record. The group has stockpiled cash and is moving in to try to cut off oxygen from Romney’s rivals with a major ad buy in Florida.

But the pro-Huntsman super PAC — reportedly funded heavily by his wealthy father — played a real role in helping him in New Hampshire, airing TV ads when his campaign couldn’t afford to.

The Santorum super PAC has also been supportive. And the pro-Gingrich version will be airing $1.4 million worth of negative ads against Romney starting Wednesday in South Carolina. It’s less than the group’s officials said they’d budgeted for, but it’s the first form of a cavalry Gingrich has seen.

The mere presence of the groups means that all three of the second-tier candidates can rationalize continuing through Florida, no matter how South Carolina goes — and possibly toward Super Tuesday — laying in wait on the chance, however unlikely, that Romney stumbles or something unexpected happens.

6) Rick Perry’s cost per vote in New Hampshire will be staggering

The Texas governor skipped town well before the votes were cast in New Hampshire.

But that effort to minimize the outcome masked how much Perry had devoted to the state in terms of resources.

The final numbers won’t be clear until his campaign filing for the final quarter of 2011 is available next week.

But Perry’s campaign, according to sources, had invested in pricey direct mail pieces and other spending in the Granite State for months, without moving the needle.

By 11 p.m., Perry had just 1,322 votes, or 0.73 percent of the vote. That’s a lot of coin per head.

The good news? At least Buddy Roemer, the former Louisiana pol who had been polling ahead of Perry in the days leading up to the primary, was trailing the Texan.

 

 

Share

Once An Asshole, Always…

Gingrich has been a jerk for years. (Chris Keane/Reuters)

Reason number something-or-other why the Vietnam-war-era multiple-deferment-getting chickenhawk Newt Gingrich is a pompous ass:

Ultimately, though, it wasn’t an issue of eligibility—Gingrich could have tried to enlist, draft or no—but of will. “Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over,” Gingrich told Jane Mayer in 1985. “Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made,” adding that “there was a bigger battle in Congress than Vietnam.” As Gingrich put it, “no one felt this was the battle-line on which freedom would live or die.”

This seems a common refrain among conservative political figures of a certain age. The premise is that they are better than the average person; more gifted, more connected, more “elite” in some way, and so while they of course could go shoot at people from a muddy ditch in some miserable, bloody war, they knew that it would be far better for society if they instead were elected to office and could use their enormous, gigantic intellects to help the rest of us peons out of our mess. Fighting is for little people who would otherwise just go off and become doctors or mechanics or concert violinists or something; Newt has the gift of knowing how to preserve our freedomz, which is a far more important position and duty than all the rest of them.

So you go die, and let your conservative intellectual superiors get on with the governing part.

This sense of personal exceptionalism is nothing new, of course, but the current crop of candidates has it in spades. Newt is smarter than anyone else, by his own estimation; Rick Santorum is more moral than anyone else, and isn’t afraid to let you know it; Ron Paul has magical economic powers that allow him to see visions of a dystopian future that the rest of us cannot; Mitt Romney is just plain richer than anyone else, and always has been, and on a daily basis makes it clear that he has no earthly concept of how the little people might go about their daily lives.

Getting preached at by any of them gets very tedious, very fast. I suppose we can take a little comfort in reminding ourselves that Gingrich, in particular, has been an asshole for his entire adult life—so there’s no hint of flip-flopping from him: He’s always known he was better than you. That’s the whole chickenhawk argument in a nutshell.

Share

Too Little, Too Late JoePa!

Jay Paterno: Joe wants to tell story

 

Jay Paterno, the son of former longtime Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, told ESPN’s Tom Rinaldi that his father is “fighting like crazy” to beat lung cancer and would like to tell his side of the story that ultimately led to his firing.

“He’s doing well because of the fact he’s in great spirits,” Jay Paterno said in a wide-ranging interview. “Anytime you have this kind of fight on your hands, you have to have a fighting spirit, which Joe has always had. And he’s fighting like crazy. But it takes some, takes some energy out of him like it does anybody else. I mean, he said to me, ‘I get tired from time to time.’

“He’s very anxious to get out there soon and start to tell his side of the story and start to express — get all the facts out,” Jay Paterno said. “What that timetable is I don’t know exactly. But he definitely is chomping at the bit.”

Paterno told Rinaldi that he wants Penn State fans, alumni and supporters to back new coach Bill O’Brien, who was officially hired on Saturday.

He told Rinaldi that he and his father — who issued a statement congratulating O’Brien and noting that the two both graduated from the same school, Brown — know O’Brien faces unique challenges in replacing a man who won 409 games in 46 years at Penn State.

“I don’t think anybody knows really what the guy that follows Joe Paterno is going to face,” Paterno said. “Nobody knows that. You’re not replacing Joe Paterno. You’ve become the head coach at Penn State. And the most important thing is that you don’t try and live up to something instead of — of a person. You try and just carry on the goals and the values and the things that have always been a part of this program, and I think that’s the only challenge you have to worry about.”

Joe Paterno’s cancer diagnosis was revealed on Nov. 18, nine days after he was fired by Penn State in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal that has resulted in 52 counts of child molestation against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.

Last month, Sandusky waived his preliminary hearing. His next court appearance is a March 22 pretrial conference. Sandusky has maintained his innocence and is under house arrest after posting $250,000 bail.

In addition, former athletic director Tim Curley and a school vice president, Gary Schultz, face trial for charges of perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse and have left the school. Penn State president Graham Spanier was also fired on Nov. 9, along with Joe Paterno.

Jay Paterno said he isn’t sure how his father has been judged in the court of public opinion.

“I can’t really say how he would feel about it,” Jay Paterno said. “But I think what has happened, it has almost been a runaway train — as it has impacted Joe Paterno, as it has impacted Penn State, as it has impacted Penn State football.” “

I think the most important thing, when you look at some of the things that have happened in the past, whether it be Duke lacrosse, whether it be Richard Jewell in Atlanta, I think there has to be some time for facts to come out. And whether — they may have had facts.

– Jay Paterno, on the Penn State trustees’ decision to fire his father

Paterno said he wouldn’t have wanted to be in the shoes of the Penn State Board of Trustees when they made the decision to let his father go. But he did wish officials had been more deliberate.

“I think the most important thing, when you look at some of the things that have happened in the past, whether it be Duke lacrosse, whether it be Richard Jewell in Atlanta, I think there has to be some time for facts to come out,” Paterno said. “And whether — they may have had facts. I don’t know what they had, so I don’t know what message I could’ve delivered to them based on I don’t know what information they had. ”

Paterno said he didn’t know what he would say if he saw Sandusky, other than to support Sandusky’s son, E.J.

“I don’t know, I couldn’t even pretend to say I know exactly what I would say,” he said.

Asked what he believed about Sandusky’s claim of innocence, Paterno said: “I don’t believe anything yet. I think it’s the responsibility of us as Americans to wait for due process to happen, to let the facts to come out.”

But Paterno did mention Sandusky’s accusers, saying his father would want their plight to be remembered, too.

“I think one of the things that Joe has stressed to us throughout this whole time is, ‘Yeah, I’m going through some tough things, but there’s a lot of other things going on over the last couple months. And there’s some victims out there that we need to keep in our thoughts,’ ” Paterno said. “And he stressed that to us a bunch of times.”

Paterno doesn’t know where his next job will be. O’Brien said he will interview every member of the Penn State coaching staff over the next few days. If he is not retained, Paterno doesn’t know what his future is. He said he would discuss it with his wife to see if there is a future in coaching.

“It’s been a roller-coaster ride, with a lot of dips and a lot of ups and a lot of downs,” Jay Paterno said of the days since his father was fired. Citing Arthur Miller’s book “The Crucible,” he talked about the impact of the situation on his family’s name.

“I think about the fact that, after 61 years, people can try and take that away,” he said. “And that’s probably been the thing that’s really stuck me the most, because (Joe Paterno) lived his life in a way that does honor to the name that his father gave him.”

 

Share

Not For A Weak Heart Or Small Pocketbooks

 

Newt Gingrich Criticizes Mitt Romney’s Suggestion That Only Wealthy Americans Run For Office Amanda Terkel

 

 

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sharply criticized comments made by Mitt Romney during Sunday morning’s debate, when he suggested that Americans who need to pay off their mortgage should perhaps not run for public office.

Romney said his father once told him, “‘Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage.’ If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference. He said also don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

Romney’s advice was meant to warn against the idea of a career politician who is simply interested in staying in office and profiting from public service. But arguably, there are less-affluent citizens who may want to answer the call of service and may nevertheless need a paycheck from public office in order to pay the bills.

At a Hispanic town hall meeting at the Don Quijote restaurant in Manchester on Sunday, Gingrich sharply criticized Romney’s remarks.

“This morning, when Gov. Romney made the comment that you shouldn’t run in order to pay your mortgage — I thought that was very much the opposite of the American tradition historically,” he said. “We want everyday, normal people, to be able to run for office. Not just millionaires.”

Gingrich said he was raised as an “Army brat” whose family didn’t have much money, and that he was able to run for office largely with the help of the Republican Women’s Federation.

“It was harder than it should have been,” he said. “But today it’s even harder than it was back then. … So I think it’s really important we get back to making it possible for everyday middle class candidates to go out and run for office.”

 

The intersection of money and politics played an outsize role at Gingrich’s town hall.

When one woman asked him about how he would take the influence of money out of politics, Gingrich replied, “I think it is a practical reality that people who want to influence a government of this side are going to figure out a way to do it. … The answer, I think, is a very simple election law that says, anyone can give any amount of personal after-tax income to the candidate, as long as they report it that night on the Internet.”

There were protesters outside the restaurant calling to get rid of corporate money in politics. Some of them were banging on drums and shouting through megaphones throughout the event, and inside, Gingrich had to speak over the din.

At one point, a man named Paul who identified himself as an Occupy Wall Street protester interrupted Gingrich and asked whether he would decline corporate contributions. When Gingrich responded, the man repeatedly tried to debate him until the former House Speaker requested that he give other people a chance to speak, and Gingrich’s staff came over and asked him to be quiet.

In 2002, Gingrich actually voiced concerns similar to those expressed by the protesters today. During a debate with political activist and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Gingrich said, “I’m very happy to get corporations out of politics. I think it’d be better for America if you had no union and corporate donations, but individuals could donate of their own after-tax income.”

When asked by The Huffington Post on Sunday about his earlier comments, Gingrich replied, “I think it’d be better to have individuals give unlimited personal money, and then you wouldn’t need corporations and unions.”

Share

Church And State: They Shall Be As One, Amen!

The Devil and Rick Santorum: Dilemmas of a Holy Owned Subsidiary By Thomas Ferguson

Election night in Iowa was a heavenly moment for Rick Santorum. As he marveled over the late breaking tidal wave of support that in just weeks had swept him from nowhere into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney for first place in the state’s Republican caucuses, the former Pennsylvania Senator gushed to supporters about the secret of his campaign’s success: “I’ve survived the challenges so far by the daily grace that comes from God. . . . I offer a public thanks to God.’’

But it was not God who saved Rick Santorum. He survived Iowa rather like a blind mole rat might someday outlive a nuclear exchange – by simply burrowing underground while Romney’s Super Pac incinerated Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, and while Perry tried to demolish Ron Paul, whom he considered a more dangerous rival. In a state where 60% of those attending the 2008 GOP caucuses described themselves as “born again” or evangelicals, Santorum was the only ultra-conservative left for resigned evangelical leaders to swing behind.

Now, as the wall of Super Money comes down on him like a ton of gold bricks, Santorum is likely fated, like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Perry himself, to flame out after a brief moment of glory and go back to working with the energy and health care enterprises that helped make him a millionaire after leaving the Senate.

But this leaves a larger question: Why does this curious “shooting star” pattern of flare ups and flame outs distinguish the quest of hopefuls for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? The answer lies in the party’s tricky long-term strategy to steer ordinary voters into focusing on wedge issues rather than the economic policies. The party establishment wants Romney, but its voters have been so thoroughly trained to focus on gays and abortion that they cannot sit still behind a candidate who concentrates on business and economic growth.

A Party Built for the 1 Percent

Beginning in the Nixon era, and then with ever greater determination and force after Reagan, GOP leaders have carefully built out a very special party structure. But at what should by all rights be a moment of easy triumph, thanks to the combination of the Great Recession and the Obama administration’s repeated economic policy blunders, the GOP is on the verge of chaos. The carefully elaborated structure of primaries, group appeals, and elaborately layered leadership structures is coming apart. Republican leaders now find themselves superlatively prepared to fight exactly the wrong war.

Their dilemma is easy to understand, if one tears oneself away from media talking heads and the endless election chatter that now fills the US press. As perhaps most painstakingly documented by Larry Bartels, in his ‘Unequal Democracy,’ Republican policies are stunningly orientated toward making the richest Americans richer and they have consistently done exactly that, by comparison with Democratic regimes.

This is not to say the Democrats do not also cater to segments of the rich – Bartels, like nearly everyone else writing about American politics, jumped too quickly to the conclusion that the partisan differences he detected followed immediately from the direct influence of mass constituencies rather than the choices different blocs of investors made as they appealed to different segments of the electorate while competing to control the parties. But as far as it goes, his point is true and important.

To summarize and retranslate into the language of my investment theory of political parties: Republicans historically secure the incomes of upper income Americans, whatever else they do. By contrast, Democrats typically compete by offering something – and these days, not much at all – to more of the 99%, even as they go whole hog for financial deregulation amid a raft of money from Vampire Squids, telecom monopolists, and other dark forces.

Republican leaders from Nixon, through Reagan, Gingrich, and the Bushes all understood their situation. They knew that to win consistently, they needed to do two things.  First, they had to discourage as many poorer Americans from voting as possible. A succession of Republican administrations, sometimes abetted by conservative Democrats, have worked overtime at this. Once centered on punitive registration requirements, such efforts nowadays focus more on state measures to curtail early voting and, especially, add demands for photo ids.

No less important were the implications for GOP campaigns and political rhetoric. Once GOP leaders got past bromides about encouraging economic growth, to have any chance of appealing to the normal Americans their policies were first to squeeze, and over a generation, to impoverish, the party needed to change the subject from economics when campaigning. Fast.

Wedge Issues: the Weapon That Backfired

Thus it was that Republican leaders tried out one wedge issue after another, looking for anything that would stick. Nixon, Helms, and nearly the whole party played the race card for a long time; some still do. In the eighties, conservative Republicans built alliances with evangelicals and attacked gays. Many also attacked immigrants, while, of course, virtually everyone talked up defense, national security, and guns 24/7. After 9/11, with much help from Fox News and the other networks, they kept Americans on high alert for low reasons, to the point that Republicans in Oklahoma and other states sometimes run against the threat of Islamic law with a straight face. The party also looked with benign neglect at the rise of a libertarian right, though Ron Paul’s current challenge is a bit more than the party establishment, which lives and dies by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Defense, bargained for.

This brings us to the conflicts that are now chewing up the GOP. Most Americans, if they think about electorates at all, probably think of the American voting universe as a natural fact, akin to the tides or the moon. But as Walter Dean Burnham and I have never stopped emphasizing, that is not true. Electorates are like Japanese gardens. They have to be cultivated over long periods if they are to flourish. A host of rules, institutional practices, and careful appeals mobilize some blocs and demobilize others, including decisions about where to spend money to encourage turnout or make sure enough voting machines are available.

In 2012, history has dealt the GOP a hand it hadn’t counted on. The Democrats should be hopelessly vulnerable on the economy just now. The Obama administration’s failure to stimulate the economy sufficiently and address the mortgage problem, along with its single-minded focus on rescuing the financial sector, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans on both the left and the right. The opportunity for the Republicans is so huge that that the GOP establishment can almost taste it. As Haley Barbour, a former chair of the Republican National Committee who is also one of the most closely connected of all Republican leaders to big business observed recently, “If the 2012 election is about President Obama’s policies and the negative results of those policies, he won’t be reelected; so if I were campaigning, I’d talk about how his policies have made economic growth and job creation harder.”

So the party establishment rallied quickly behind Mitt Romney, though he is the first choice of comparatively few and mistrusted still by many.

The establishment’s problem, however, is that the electorate it so laboriously built over the last generation still has all those wedge issues on their minds. This doesn’t mean they don’t think also about economic issues – the Iowa polls, for example, show plainly that they do. But many GOP voters are in the party now because of the earlier recruiting efforts and habits that reflected their other deep interests. They aren’t going away. Nor are they going to stop caring about those issues, whether the GOP establishment likes it or not.

So the Republican leaders have a problem. A huge percentage – in Iowa it was three quarters – of the electorate that it presides over doesn’t want to follow its lead. In 1953, after riots broke out in the self-styled worker’s paradise of East Germany, Bertolt Brecht famously suggested that the government should dissolve the people and go find another one. That prospect is not open to the GOP establishment. It will need them in the general election, especially if the economy were to improve. So all it can do right now is to unroll its mighty bankroll and bulldoze through its opponents, hoping that none of those being squashed defects to some third party.

But it might just take divine intervention to make this strategy work.

Share

As The Countdown Returns: Olbermann

Dear Keith,

I hope you don’t mind that I address you by your first name. I’ve been a fan for years, so long that I almost feel I know you…or at least as much as you can know someone you’ve seen only on a television screen.

From your time at ESPN forward, I’ve watched your career unfold. I’ve found myself eagerly looking forward to seeing you on my TV. Your intellect, your sardonic wit, your “no sacred cows” philosophy, and your surpassing skill and talent have never been in doubt. Your ability to entertain and inform have always been top-notch and well worth whatever time I’ve invested in watching you.

Having said that, though, I must confess to being greatly disturbed and concerned. I’ve watched you evolve from an erudite sportscaster into a strong and forceful Liberal voice. I’ve been a devotee of “Countdown”, first on MSNBC and now on Current TV, for years…and I’m beginning to fear that you’re becoming a willing victim of your own success.

 

I get that you’re opinionated, always have been, and don’t suffer fools lightly. I admire that about you, because we share those qualities. Somewhere along the line, though, you’ve lost the ability tostep back from the stories you report on. The stories, and the silliness and hypocrisy too often behind them, have become personal. You’ve traveled from the realm of trenchant, insightful analysis to the domain of name-calling, personal insults, and screaming. You’ve become a Liberal version of the clowns on Fox News Channel you so frequently excoriate. You’ve become a thinking man’s Ed Schultz…and that’s NOT a compliment.

It seems that everywhere you’ve gone conflict has followed. For whatever reason, you find yourself at loggerheads with your employer early on. Perhaps the reasons for the conflicts are legitimate, but given that this has been the story wherever you’ve plied your trade, it seems clear that the problem isn’t with those who sign your checks. The problem is YOU. Whether it’s rampant ego, a sense of entitlement, an over-cooked sense of your own value and worth, or combinations of the former, you’ve demonstrated yourself incapable of playing well with others. How much longer do you think media outlets will tolerate your immaturity and inability to play by the rules? How many bridges will you burn before there are no bridges left and, even worse, no one left willing to build bridges for you?

I understand that objective journalism died with the advent of Fox News Channel. Ideologues and moral midgets like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Megyn Kelly may have carved out their niche among those who like their news wrapped with outrage and Right-wing propaganda. That truth doesn’t convey upon you license to engage in the same sort of incivility on the other end of ideological spectrum. Shouldn’t you be able to rise above such narrow pettiness?

I’ve enjoyed “Countdown” for its insightful analysis, its reliance on facts, and it devotion to divining the truth. The “Countdown” I occasionally watch now is but a shell of the principled work of journalistic excellence that used to be offered up every night at 8pm ET. What I see now is you shouting, exercising your considerable anger, and engaging in personal insults directed at those with whom you clearly disagree. I admire your commitment, and I generally find myself in agreement with your point of view. What I can’t stomach is the anger, the vitriol, and the insults directed at those with whom you differ. Must you so willingly descend to the realm of those you excoriate??

Your on-air conduct reveals an angry, intolerant personality who differs from Fox News’ talking heads only on ideological terms. Your off-air conflicts with your employers leaves me wondering if you’re incapable of playing well with others. Your screaming, your profanity, and your childish conduct are unworthy of someone who fancies himself a journalist who admires Edward R. Murrow. It’s time to grow up and show that you’re the better person…but your behavior leaves me fearingthat you’re not.

I recognize that you long ago abandoned any pretense of objectivity. In today’s hyper-partisan media environment, that’s understandable. There’s nothing wrong with pushing a Liberal agenda, especially given that there’s an entire network devoted to openly pushing Right-wing propaganda. That said, I cannot continue to give you a free pass for your immaturity, incivility, and screaming. It solves nothing, and it serves only to widen the gaping ideological chasm that exists in this country. Somewhere, somehow, Americans need to stand up to the hyper-partisan incivility and voluble intolerance that characterizes the state of our public discourse.

You may think someone an ass…but that doesn’t convey license to be an ass yourself…and yes, I recognize that I haven’t always done a stellar job of living up to that admonition myself.

As much as it pains me to say this, I can no longer condone your behavior. I can’t in good conscience continue watching “Countdown”, knowing what it could be, and recognizing what’s it’s devolved into. Some time ago, I resolved to boycott Ed Schultz for the same reasons. Scream loud and long enough, and eventually your audience will begin to tune you out. Congratulations, Keith; you’ve succeeded in alienating one of your biggest fans.

I’ll return when and if you can conduct yourself like a journalist…but I suspect that you’re too busy burning bridges to notice or care. Good luck to you.

 

Share
A Gentleman’s view.0.723 Return to Top ▲Return to Top ▲ Copy Protected by Tech Tips's CopyProtect Wordpress Blogs.