From The Washington Post --- July 30, 2010:
By Michael D. Shear and Peter Whoriskey
Obama touts auto bailout during Michigan trip
DETROIT -- The government's bailout of the American auto industry last year sparked political hand-wringing about the end of capitalism and allegations that President Obama aspired to be CEO of what critics dubbed "Government Motors."
After the president forced the firing of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) proclaimed Obama's actions "truly breathtaking" and said the government ownership roles at Chrysler and GM "should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise."
But a year and a half later, many of the critics have retreated from their sharpest attacks as they watch the auto industry once again turn a profit and begin adding jobs in communities such as Detroit, which desperately need them.
Obama's visit to a Chryster plant in Detroit Friday was designed as a victory rally -- complete with campaign-style trappings -- an "I told you so" event aimed squarely at his Republican critics who had attacked the auto bailouts as government takeovers.
A feisty Obama was welcomed with loud applause by about 1,500 auto workers inside the plant that makes the Jeep Grand Cherokee, a vehicle the president said was the first new car he ever owned. If his critics had won, he said, the plant would have been shuttered and dark.
"If some folks had their way, none of this would be happening," he said, calling out the "leaders of the 'just say no crowd' in Washington" and sparking loud boos from the crowd when he added that "one of them called it the worst investment we could make."
There's no satisfying some, like radio host Rush Limbaugh, who this week referred to GM as Obama Motors. And the auto turnaround is not enough to fix places like Detroit, where 30 percent unemployment has ravaged the city like few others in the United States.
But as Obama arrived here Friday to trumpet the industry's progress, Corker refrained from saying that the bailouts were bad for the country. He says the administration's methods were "heavy-handed" but also takes credit for helping to shape the bailout. He prodded the Obama administration to force the companies to lessen their debt and achieve a more favorable union agreement.
"The ideas we laid out there were followed through," Corker said in an interview. "I take some pleasure out of helping make that contribution. . . . I think what we did is we forced a debate and we forced a hard look at these companies."
When it comes to critics who continue to condemn the bailout, the White House is not in a forgiving mood. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that critics such as Limbaugh were willing to forsake auto workers just at the time they needed help the most.
"I'll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year and a half ago and wanted to walk away from a million [jobs] explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision," Gibbs told reporters. Then he added: "Ask Mr. Limbaugh -- I don't know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it's not an [Ford] F-150."
Sharp words aside, the White House is eager to tell a success story ahead of the congressional midterm elections this fall. The president's Friday visit and another to a Ford plant outside of Chicago next week are intended to tell that story more widely to potential voters.
The president started at Chrysler's Jefferson North plant, where Jeep Grand Cherokees are being built, and then toured a GM plant which will produce the company's first electric car, the Volt. Both are churning out cars, adding shifts of workers and helping to keep suppliers in business across the Rust Belt.
"In the year before these bankruptcies, these companies lost almost 340,000 jobs," said Ron Bloom, the administration's top auto official. "In the year since then, 55,000 jobs have been added to these companies. If we hadn't stepped in when we did, most observers believe at least a million jobs would have been lost."
Previewing both the substance and intensity of his campaign-year rhetoric, Obama made clear Friday that he will use the success of the auto turnaround as a centerpiece of the argument that his economic policies have created an economic recovery.
"Don't bet against the American worker," he said, his voice rising over the cheers from the audience. "Don't bet against the American people. We've got some more work to do. It's going to take some time to get back to where we want to be, but I have confidence in the American worker...I have confidence in this economy. We are coming back."
That message, in particular, was received well in the cavernous assembly plant, where many of the workers described a welcome turnaround in morale from a year or two ago, when scared workers took buyouts, fearing the end was near.
"The morale is different now," said Erik Williams, 38, who has worked at the plant since 1994. "When you know you are on the brink and you come back from that, it puts it in a different perspective."
Several of the plant workers said Obama deserves much of the credit for believing in the industry and it's employees.
"I've been here 16 years and last year was the worst year of my life. it was terrible," said James Tiedt, 39. He said he almost lost his house to foreclosure last year but was saved by one of the government's housing programs. Of Obama, he added: "He's the man."
In fact, the auto industry bailout Obama launched may be ranked as the largest single jobs program undertaken by the administration.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Congressional Republicans: "We Owe American Heroes 9/11 First Responders 'Zilch'; We Owe Our Souls to Foreign Corporations Exploiting Tax Loopholes
Congress rejects Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act as GOP members balk at bill
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS --- July 30, 2010:
Congress turned thumbs down on the Zadroga 9/11 Health/Compensation Act Thursday night, raising doubts it will ever pass.
Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.
The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.
"This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), arguing that it would be raided by undeserving scammers with tenuous links to 9/11.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) cast it as a money grab for New York because the bill would pay for care at higher rates than Medicare. "What this is is politics," Shimkus said. "What this is is enfranchising a bunch of New York City hospitals."
"This fund is bloated," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
Texas Republican Joe Barton, leading debate for his side, said the GOP would back a smaller program, such as the $150 million a year the White House would like to spend. But he said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks.
"We support it, without raising taxes on the rest of the American people," said Barton (R-Texas), who recently won infamy by apologizing to BP.
The measure is paid for by closing tax loopholes on foreign subsidiaries that do business in the United States, which the GOP also opposed, saying it was a tax hike on foreign companies that hire Americans.
Democrats would have been able to pass the bill if they used the normal procedure, but they brought it up as a "suspension bill," which needs a two-thirds vote to pass because it can't be amended. Democrats feared the GOP would attach poison pills to the bill.
It failed 255 to 159, with just 12 Republicans backing it.
The procedural move infuriated the few Republicans who voted yes, with Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) calling it "a cruel hoax and a charade," suggesting Democrats want to use the failure to hammer the GOP in November. "This bill should be more important than a campaign talking point," he fumed.
Mayor Bloomberg slammed the failure, calling it "outrageous," and blaming both sides.
"It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill, and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult," he said.
Democrats savaged the other side, saying they were turning their backs on heroes to protect foreign tax cheats, and said it really shouldn't matter how the country pays to take care of people who answered the call from all over the nation, and are sick now.
"Many of these people are losing their lives," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "They certainly have lost their health. And we owe them."
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS --- July 30, 2010:
Congress turned thumbs down on the Zadroga 9/11 Health/Compensation Act Thursday night, raising doubts it will ever pass.
Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.
The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.
"This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), arguing that it would be raided by undeserving scammers with tenuous links to 9/11.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) cast it as a money grab for New York because the bill would pay for care at higher rates than Medicare. "What this is is politics," Shimkus said. "What this is is enfranchising a bunch of New York City hospitals."
"This fund is bloated," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
Texas Republican Joe Barton, leading debate for his side, said the GOP would back a smaller program, such as the $150 million a year the White House would like to spend. But he said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks.
"We support it, without raising taxes on the rest of the American people," said Barton (R-Texas), who recently won infamy by apologizing to BP.
The measure is paid for by closing tax loopholes on foreign subsidiaries that do business in the United States, which the GOP also opposed, saying it was a tax hike on foreign companies that hire Americans.
Democrats would have been able to pass the bill if they used the normal procedure, but they brought it up as a "suspension bill," which needs a two-thirds vote to pass because it can't be amended. Democrats feared the GOP would attach poison pills to the bill.
It failed 255 to 159, with just 12 Republicans backing it.
The procedural move infuriated the few Republicans who voted yes, with Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) calling it "a cruel hoax and a charade," suggesting Democrats want to use the failure to hammer the GOP in November. "This bill should be more important than a campaign talking point," he fumed.
Mayor Bloomberg slammed the failure, calling it "outrageous," and blaming both sides.
"It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill, and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult," he said.
Democrats savaged the other side, saying they were turning their backs on heroes to protect foreign tax cheats, and said it really shouldn't matter how the country pays to take care of people who answered the call from all over the nation, and are sick now.
"Many of these people are losing their lives," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "They certainly have lost their health. And we owe them."
"Base Connect" Direct Mail Firm Earns Huge Profits from Conservative Congressional Campaigns
From Salon --- JULY 29, 2010:
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT
Angle spends more than $600,000 on shady firm.
The Nevada GOP Senate hopeful pays 20 percent of funds raised to controversial direct-mail outfit Base Connect.
More than a third of money spent by Nevada Republican Sharron Angle's campaign has gone to a controversial direct mail firm.
Sharron Angle, who has fallen behind Harry Reid in several recent polls and can scarcely afford to squander any resources, has sunk $637,000 into a notorious D.C. direct mail firm. A Salon review of the Nevada Republican's FEC filings found that Angle has forked over about 20 percent of all the money she's raised to Base Connect, which is known for charging its conservative clients exorbitant fees -- as high as 80% -- and was recently dropped by a sitting Republcian congressman because of its terrible reputation.
Formerly known as BMW Direct, Base Connect describes itself "a full-service creative agency for conservative candidates running at the national level." For the past several election cycles, the firm's M.O. has gone like this: find a longshot conservative candidate running against a well-established Democratic incumbent, then launch a national fundraising campaign by sending direct mail to a list of true-believing but small-time conservative donors around the country.
The catch is that as much 75 or 80 or even 95 percent of the money raised is paid back to Base Connect and its "partner" companies (which are based in the same suite in the same building just off K Street in Washington). GOP consultant Bill Pascoe dubbed this "subprime fundraising." And Erick Erickson once said that candidates who use the firm are in danger of losing RedState's endorsement, presumably because conservative donors' money is going to a fundraising agency rather than actually helping the cause. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) dropped all ties with Base Connect after Talking Points Memo reported in March he was paying the firm 75 percent in fundraising fees.
Both Angle's campaign and Base Connect did not respond to requests for comment, so it's not clear how much money the firm has raised for Angle. But she is clearly one of its major clients this cycle -- featured all over Base Connect's Web site and Twitter feed. Angle has paid $637,000 to Base Connect and two "partner" companies called Century Data Mailing Service and Legacy Lists Inc, according to FEC filings. All three firms operate out of suite 410 at 1155 15th St, NW.
The $637,000 amounts to about 20% of all the money Angle has raised this cycle, and about 35% of what she's spent so far. She seems to still be using the firm, as the most recent payments came on June 30, according to second quarter FEC data.
The classic Base Connect candidates are people you've never heard of like Charles Morse, a Republican who took on Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2008 but dropped out before the general election after getting just 145 votes in the GOP primary. The Boston Globe reported that his longshot campaign took in a staggering $700,000 with the help of Base Connect (then BMW Direct) -- but the firm was paid 96% of the money. Another no-name congressional candidate, a black Republican named Deborah Honeycutt in Georgia, raised gobs of money with Base Connect in 2008 -- and paid the firm gobs of money in return. She went on to lose by 38 points.
Base Connect has argued that it is giving obscure candidates a chance and that postage and printing accounts for a significant amount of the money paid to the company.
Angle may have been attracted to the firm because she herself was originally a longshot Tea Party candidate with nothing to lose. But since she emerged from the wreckage of the GOP primary as the Republican chosen to take on Harry Reid -- considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation -- Angle's campaign has been in free fall. It has struggled with revelations of Angle's far-right views, a paranoid media strategy, and failure to respond effectively to Reid's attacks. National Republicans have dispatched a veteran communications operative to help get her campaign back on track. But Angle's relationship with Base Connect will do nothing to recast her image as a mainstream figure who can run a disciplined campaign against the Majority Leader.
UPDATE: We may have just found out how Angle ended up employing Base Connect: Jordan Gehrke, who was just named Angle's communications director after a stint as her deputy campaign manager, used to work as director of business development for Base Connect when it was known as BMW Direct. It's not clear when he left the firm. But this is not the first time current or former Base Connect staffers have been involved in the campaigns that employ the firm.
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT
Angle spends more than $600,000 on shady firm.
The Nevada GOP Senate hopeful pays 20 percent of funds raised to controversial direct-mail outfit Base Connect.
More than a third of money spent by Nevada Republican Sharron Angle's campaign has gone to a controversial direct mail firm.
Sharron Angle, who has fallen behind Harry Reid in several recent polls and can scarcely afford to squander any resources, has sunk $637,000 into a notorious D.C. direct mail firm. A Salon review of the Nevada Republican's FEC filings found that Angle has forked over about 20 percent of all the money she's raised to Base Connect, which is known for charging its conservative clients exorbitant fees -- as high as 80% -- and was recently dropped by a sitting Republcian congressman because of its terrible reputation.
Formerly known as BMW Direct, Base Connect describes itself "a full-service creative agency for conservative candidates running at the national level." For the past several election cycles, the firm's M.O. has gone like this: find a longshot conservative candidate running against a well-established Democratic incumbent, then launch a national fundraising campaign by sending direct mail to a list of true-believing but small-time conservative donors around the country.
The catch is that as much 75 or 80 or even 95 percent of the money raised is paid back to Base Connect and its "partner" companies (which are based in the same suite in the same building just off K Street in Washington). GOP consultant Bill Pascoe dubbed this "subprime fundraising." And Erick Erickson once said that candidates who use the firm are in danger of losing RedState's endorsement, presumably because conservative donors' money is going to a fundraising agency rather than actually helping the cause. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) dropped all ties with Base Connect after Talking Points Memo reported in March he was paying the firm 75 percent in fundraising fees.
Both Angle's campaign and Base Connect did not respond to requests for comment, so it's not clear how much money the firm has raised for Angle. But she is clearly one of its major clients this cycle -- featured all over Base Connect's Web site and Twitter feed. Angle has paid $637,000 to Base Connect and two "partner" companies called Century Data Mailing Service and Legacy Lists Inc, according to FEC filings. All three firms operate out of suite 410 at 1155 15th St, NW.
The $637,000 amounts to about 20% of all the money Angle has raised this cycle, and about 35% of what she's spent so far. She seems to still be using the firm, as the most recent payments came on June 30, according to second quarter FEC data.
The classic Base Connect candidates are people you've never heard of like Charles Morse, a Republican who took on Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2008 but dropped out before the general election after getting just 145 votes in the GOP primary. The Boston Globe reported that his longshot campaign took in a staggering $700,000 with the help of Base Connect (then BMW Direct) -- but the firm was paid 96% of the money. Another no-name congressional candidate, a black Republican named Deborah Honeycutt in Georgia, raised gobs of money with Base Connect in 2008 -- and paid the firm gobs of money in return. She went on to lose by 38 points.
Base Connect has argued that it is giving obscure candidates a chance and that postage and printing accounts for a significant amount of the money paid to the company.
Angle may have been attracted to the firm because she herself was originally a longshot Tea Party candidate with nothing to lose. But since she emerged from the wreckage of the GOP primary as the Republican chosen to take on Harry Reid -- considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation -- Angle's campaign has been in free fall. It has struggled with revelations of Angle's far-right views, a paranoid media strategy, and failure to respond effectively to Reid's attacks. National Republicans have dispatched a veteran communications operative to help get her campaign back on track. But Angle's relationship with Base Connect will do nothing to recast her image as a mainstream figure who can run a disciplined campaign against the Majority Leader.
UPDATE: We may have just found out how Angle ended up employing Base Connect: Jordan Gehrke, who was just named Angle's communications director after a stint as her deputy campaign manager, used to work as director of business development for Base Connect when it was known as BMW Direct. It's not clear when he left the firm. But this is not the first time current or former Base Connect staffers have been involved in the campaigns that employ the firm.
Republicans Block a Democratic Bill To Help Small Businesses; Republicans Do What They Do Best -- Filibuster to Prolong and Expand the Recession
From The Washington Post -- July 30, 2010:
By Lori Montgomery
In a fresh blow to President Obama's jobs agenda, the Senate on Thursday shelved a plan to create a $30 billion loan fund for cash-strapped small businesses, delaying final passage of a top administration priority until September at the earliest.
Though Senate leaders in both parties were still working toward a compromise late Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would not return to the bill until next week. Even if the Senate approved it, the bill would have to go back to the House, which is set to begin its August break on Friday.
The bill, which also includes $12 billion in business tax breaks and additional aid for state lending programs, has won the support of more than 100 business groups, including such traditional GOP allies as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that many Republicans also support many of the measure's provisions, which could aid a key political constituency, spur hiring and help reduce a 9.5 percent unemployment rate as lawmakers head into the November elections.
Nonetheless, the Senate failed again to advance the bill, as a united Republican caucus voted Thursday to continue to its filibuster after Reid and McConnell reached an impasse over the number of amendments that the GOP could offer.
By Lori Montgomery
In a fresh blow to President Obama's jobs agenda, the Senate on Thursday shelved a plan to create a $30 billion loan fund for cash-strapped small businesses, delaying final passage of a top administration priority until September at the earliest.
Though Senate leaders in both parties were still working toward a compromise late Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would not return to the bill until next week. Even if the Senate approved it, the bill would have to go back to the House, which is set to begin its August break on Friday.
The bill, which also includes $12 billion in business tax breaks and additional aid for state lending programs, has won the support of more than 100 business groups, including such traditional GOP allies as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that many Republicans also support many of the measure's provisions, which could aid a key political constituency, spur hiring and help reduce a 9.5 percent unemployment rate as lawmakers head into the November elections.
Nonetheless, the Senate failed again to advance the bill, as a united Republican caucus voted Thursday to continue to its filibuster after Reid and McConnell reached an impasse over the number of amendments that the GOP could offer.
More Right-Wing Conservative Crooked Con Artists
From The Washington Post --- July 30, 2010:
SEC charges billionaire Texas brothers who donate to GOP with fraud
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Philip Rucker
Sam and Charles Wyly, billionaire Texas brothers who gained prominence spending millions of dollars on conservative political causes, committed fraud by using secret overseas accounts to generate more than $550 million in profit through illegal stock trades, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Thursday.
The Wylys, who have been generous contributors to the Republican Party and GOP candidates, have spent the past several years facing questions, including from a Senate investigative committee, about whether they hid millions of dollars in tax shelters abroad.
Through their lawyer, the Wylys denied all charges.
According to the SEC, the brothers, who live in Dallas, created an elaborate and clandestine network of accounts and companies on the Isle of Man and in the Cayman Islands. The brothers then used these accounts and companies to trade more than $750 million of stock in four public companies on whose boards they served, not filing the disclosures required for corporate insiders, the SEC said.
In one case, the SEC alleges that the Wylys traded based on insider information they learned as board members, netting a profit of $32 million.
"The cloak of secrecy has been lifted from the complex web of foreign structures used by the Wylys to evade the securities laws," Lorin L. Reisner, deputy director of SEC enforcement, said Thursday in a statement announcing the civil charges.
The agency is seeking unspecified financial penalties and a variety of other sanctions, including barring the Wylys from serving as directors or top executives of public companies.
William Brewer III, a lawyer representing the Wylys, said they intend to clear their name.
"After six years of investigations, the SEC has chosen to make claims against the Wyly brothers -- claims that, in our view, are without merit," Brewer said in a statement. "It will come as little surprise to those who know them that the Wylys intend to vigorously defend themselves -- and expect to be fully vindicated."
Charles Wyly, 76, and Sam Wyly, 75, have led a largely reclusive life, with their public persona defined by their political activities. Charles Wyly and his wife, Dee, have given more than $1.5 million to more than 200 Republican candidates, party committees and conservative political action committees over the past 20 years, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Sam Wyly and his wife, Cheryl, gave more than $970,000 over the same period, the analysis shows.
The Wylys have given to dozens of Republican candidates, none more so than the Bush family. The brothers were supporters of the campaigns of former President George H. W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush.
In 2000, the Wylys financed a third-party group, Republicans for Clean Air, that launched a television advertising broadside against George W. Bush's chief opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), on the eve of crucial GOP presidential primaries. Later that year, the brothers each gave $100,000 to fund Bush's inaugural festivities.
"They are among the biggest of the big when it comes to campaign bank-rollers, and their donors list is a who's who of the Republican Party over the past decade," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "It's almost hard to find prominent Republicans who haven't been a beneficiary of their financial largess. They've definitely been very kind, financially speaking, to a number of Republicans."
Their biggest beneficiaries include three Texas Republicans, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and former House Republican leader Richard K. Armey, according to the Center for Responsive Politics analysis. The Wylys also have given to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and many other members of the GOP.
Both brothers, according to Forbes magazine, are billionaires who amassed their fortune by founding a computer company and investing in a wide range of interests including oil, insurance and restaurants. In 1979, Sam Wyly faced sanctions by the SEC for improper regulatory disclosures.
They have been the subject of probes into potential financial wrongdoing since then. In 2006, the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations completed a report on tax havens that focused on the Wylys.
Over 13 years, the Wylys used an "armada" of lawyers, brokers and other professionals to manage hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions that amounted to "the most elaborate offshore operations reviewed by the Subcommittee," according to the panel's report.
In announcing its case, the SEC alleged that the Wylys' improper trades benefited them in many ways. They used the proceeds to buy art, collectibles, and jewelry worth tens of millions of dollars, according to the complaint. They spent $100 million to buy real estate, including two ranches in Aspen, Colo., two condominiums in Aspen, and a 100-acre horse farm outside Dallas. They also used the proceeds to cover charitable contributions made by the Wylys, including $8 million to Sam Wyly's business school alma mater and a $2.5 million contribution to a church Charles Wyly attended.
The agency alleges that the Wylys committed fraud and various other violations of securities laws while sitting on the boards of four companies over the course of a decade: Michaels Stores, Sterling Software, Sterling Commerce and Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings.
The SEC says that by using offshore accounts to trade shares of these public companies, the Wylys were able to escape filing the regulatory disclosures required of board members when they buy or sell shares.
By keeping their trading activity secret, the Wylys deprived outside investors of information they could use "to gauge the sentiment of public companies' insiders and large shareholders about the financial condition and prospects of those companies," the SEC said.
In one instance, the Wylys used insider information to make an offshore purchase of shares in Sterling Software, where they served as chairman and vice chairman, according to the complaint. They did not disclose the purchase even though they knew the company was soon going to be sold, according to the SEC. Less than four months later, Sterling Software was sold, and the Wylys netted nearly $32 million.
"The Wylys have always received the advice and counsel of leading accounting and legal professionals," said Brewer, the brothers' attorney in the SEC matter. "They have never been given any reason to believe the financial transactions in question were anything other than legal and fully appropriate."
The SEC also charged the Wylys' longtime personal attorney, Michael French, and their stockbroker, Louis Schaufele III, for their roles in the alleged scheme. French also served on the board of three of the companies.
A lawyer for French did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment. A lawyer for Schaufele declined to comment.
SEC charges billionaire Texas brothers who donate to GOP with fraud
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Philip Rucker
Sam and Charles Wyly, billionaire Texas brothers who gained prominence spending millions of dollars on conservative political causes, committed fraud by using secret overseas accounts to generate more than $550 million in profit through illegal stock trades, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Thursday.
The Wylys, who have been generous contributors to the Republican Party and GOP candidates, have spent the past several years facing questions, including from a Senate investigative committee, about whether they hid millions of dollars in tax shelters abroad.
Through their lawyer, the Wylys denied all charges.
According to the SEC, the brothers, who live in Dallas, created an elaborate and clandestine network of accounts and companies on the Isle of Man and in the Cayman Islands. The brothers then used these accounts and companies to trade more than $750 million of stock in four public companies on whose boards they served, not filing the disclosures required for corporate insiders, the SEC said.
In one case, the SEC alleges that the Wylys traded based on insider information they learned as board members, netting a profit of $32 million.
"The cloak of secrecy has been lifted from the complex web of foreign structures used by the Wylys to evade the securities laws," Lorin L. Reisner, deputy director of SEC enforcement, said Thursday in a statement announcing the civil charges.
The agency is seeking unspecified financial penalties and a variety of other sanctions, including barring the Wylys from serving as directors or top executives of public companies.
William Brewer III, a lawyer representing the Wylys, said they intend to clear their name.
"After six years of investigations, the SEC has chosen to make claims against the Wyly brothers -- claims that, in our view, are without merit," Brewer said in a statement. "It will come as little surprise to those who know them that the Wylys intend to vigorously defend themselves -- and expect to be fully vindicated."
Charles Wyly, 76, and Sam Wyly, 75, have led a largely reclusive life, with their public persona defined by their political activities. Charles Wyly and his wife, Dee, have given more than $1.5 million to more than 200 Republican candidates, party committees and conservative political action committees over the past 20 years, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Sam Wyly and his wife, Cheryl, gave more than $970,000 over the same period, the analysis shows.
The Wylys have given to dozens of Republican candidates, none more so than the Bush family. The brothers were supporters of the campaigns of former President George H. W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush.
In 2000, the Wylys financed a third-party group, Republicans for Clean Air, that launched a television advertising broadside against George W. Bush's chief opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), on the eve of crucial GOP presidential primaries. Later that year, the brothers each gave $100,000 to fund Bush's inaugural festivities.
"They are among the biggest of the big when it comes to campaign bank-rollers, and their donors list is a who's who of the Republican Party over the past decade," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "It's almost hard to find prominent Republicans who haven't been a beneficiary of their financial largess. They've definitely been very kind, financially speaking, to a number of Republicans."
Their biggest beneficiaries include three Texas Republicans, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and former House Republican leader Richard K. Armey, according to the Center for Responsive Politics analysis. The Wylys also have given to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and many other members of the GOP.
Both brothers, according to Forbes magazine, are billionaires who amassed their fortune by founding a computer company and investing in a wide range of interests including oil, insurance and restaurants. In 1979, Sam Wyly faced sanctions by the SEC for improper regulatory disclosures.
They have been the subject of probes into potential financial wrongdoing since then. In 2006, the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations completed a report on tax havens that focused on the Wylys.
Over 13 years, the Wylys used an "armada" of lawyers, brokers and other professionals to manage hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions that amounted to "the most elaborate offshore operations reviewed by the Subcommittee," according to the panel's report.
In announcing its case, the SEC alleged that the Wylys' improper trades benefited them in many ways. They used the proceeds to buy art, collectibles, and jewelry worth tens of millions of dollars, according to the complaint. They spent $100 million to buy real estate, including two ranches in Aspen, Colo., two condominiums in Aspen, and a 100-acre horse farm outside Dallas. They also used the proceeds to cover charitable contributions made by the Wylys, including $8 million to Sam Wyly's business school alma mater and a $2.5 million contribution to a church Charles Wyly attended.
The agency alleges that the Wylys committed fraud and various other violations of securities laws while sitting on the boards of four companies over the course of a decade: Michaels Stores, Sterling Software, Sterling Commerce and Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings.
The SEC says that by using offshore accounts to trade shares of these public companies, the Wylys were able to escape filing the regulatory disclosures required of board members when they buy or sell shares.
By keeping their trading activity secret, the Wylys deprived outside investors of information they could use "to gauge the sentiment of public companies' insiders and large shareholders about the financial condition and prospects of those companies," the SEC said.
In one instance, the Wylys used insider information to make an offshore purchase of shares in Sterling Software, where they served as chairman and vice chairman, according to the complaint. They did not disclose the purchase even though they knew the company was soon going to be sold, according to the SEC. Less than four months later, Sterling Software was sold, and the Wylys netted nearly $32 million.
"The Wylys have always received the advice and counsel of leading accounting and legal professionals," said Brewer, the brothers' attorney in the SEC matter. "They have never been given any reason to believe the financial transactions in question were anything other than legal and fully appropriate."
The SEC also charged the Wylys' longtime personal attorney, Michael French, and their stockbroker, Louis Schaufele III, for their roles in the alleged scheme. French also served on the board of three of the companies.
A lawyer for French did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment. A lawyer for Schaufele declined to comment.
FOX News Screws Up and Fox "Pundits" Lie About the FOX Screw-Up
Before admitting a "breakdown," Fox aggressively denied prematurely covering Sherrod story
From Media Matters for America --- July 29, 2010:
Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente has now admitted that a "breakdown" allowed Foxnews.com to run a story about Shirley Sherrod's comments before she resigned. Prior to this statement, a barrage of Fox personalities aggressively pushed the claim that Fox had not run with the story before Sherrod's resignation.
Clemente admits a "breakdown" led FoxNews.com to cover Sherrod video prior to resignation
Clemente: A "breakdown" led to FoxNews.com covering Sherrod story prematurely. As Media Matters previously reported, FoxNews.com ran an article headlined "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer," before the USDA announced Sherrod's resignation on July 19. On July 28, Clemente told Politico that that story was "a mistake" and that "There was a breakdown in the system and it is being addressed." Politico added: "The breakdown occurred following Fox's afternoon news meeting that day, when Clemente, according to The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered the following advice: 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.' Clemente said he gave the advice in the meeting, not in a memo to staff, and his guidance clearly did not make it down to the reporter and producers who put the story on FoxNews.com."
Prior to Clemente's admission, Fox aggressively claimed it did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation.
Perino: "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino asserted that Fox did not cover the story until Sherrod resigned, saying "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." Perino added that "I think we should all look before we leap, and nobody likes a double standard."
Doocy: "Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned." During the same program Doocy asserted that it is "such an important point" that Fox did not cover the story before she resigned, adding:
DOOCY: Yesterday, the NAACP came out and they said that we are now apologizing to her and they say they were snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart but as Dana mentioned, there's a timeline problem. Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned. So she was pressured by the Department of Agriculture to quit, she quit, and then we did the story. So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie.
Doocy misleadingly claims "Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit." On the July 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy misleadingly claimed that Fox News Channel had not reported on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned, but did not acknowledge the network's coverage on its website:
DOOCY: [T]here have been a lot of criticisms leveled at Fox News. Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit. I mean, Fox News -- some of the commentators started doing this story after she had resigned. It was the White House, it was the NAACP, that drummed her out.
Rosen: It's a "myth" that "Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this." On the July 22 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, correspondent James Rosen misleadingly asserted that it's a "myth, the idea that Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this when in fact Miss Sherrod had resigned long before the first segments on this channel started to run about this story." Rosen did not address Fox's online coverage of the story.
Beck: "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned." On the July 22 edition of his Fox show, Glenn Beck asserted that "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned. How did Fox dupe the White House into firing her when we hadn't aired it?"
From Media Matters for America --- July 29, 2010:
Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente has now admitted that a "breakdown" allowed Foxnews.com to run a story about Shirley Sherrod's comments before she resigned. Prior to this statement, a barrage of Fox personalities aggressively pushed the claim that Fox had not run with the story before Sherrod's resignation.
Clemente admits a "breakdown" led FoxNews.com to cover Sherrod video prior to resignation
Clemente: A "breakdown" led to FoxNews.com covering Sherrod story prematurely. As Media Matters previously reported, FoxNews.com ran an article headlined "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer," before the USDA announced Sherrod's resignation on July 19. On July 28, Clemente told Politico that that story was "a mistake" and that "There was a breakdown in the system and it is being addressed." Politico added: "The breakdown occurred following Fox's afternoon news meeting that day, when Clemente, according to The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered the following advice: 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.' Clemente said he gave the advice in the meeting, not in a memo to staff, and his guidance clearly did not make it down to the reporter and producers who put the story on FoxNews.com."
Prior to Clemente's admission, Fox aggressively claimed it did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation.
Perino: "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino asserted that Fox did not cover the story until Sherrod resigned, saying "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." Perino added that "I think we should all look before we leap, and nobody likes a double standard."
Doocy: "Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned." During the same program Doocy asserted that it is "such an important point" that Fox did not cover the story before she resigned, adding:
DOOCY: Yesterday, the NAACP came out and they said that we are now apologizing to her and they say they were snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart but as Dana mentioned, there's a timeline problem. Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned. So she was pressured by the Department of Agriculture to quit, she quit, and then we did the story. So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie.
Doocy misleadingly claims "Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit." On the July 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy misleadingly claimed that Fox News Channel had not reported on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned, but did not acknowledge the network's coverage on its website:
DOOCY: [T]here have been a lot of criticisms leveled at Fox News. Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit. I mean, Fox News -- some of the commentators started doing this story after she had resigned. It was the White House, it was the NAACP, that drummed her out.
Rosen: It's a "myth" that "Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this." On the July 22 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, correspondent James Rosen misleadingly asserted that it's a "myth, the idea that Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this when in fact Miss Sherrod had resigned long before the first segments on this channel started to run about this story." Rosen did not address Fox's online coverage of the story.
Beck: "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned." On the July 22 edition of his Fox show, Glenn Beck asserted that "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned. How did Fox dupe the White House into firing her when we hadn't aired it?"
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Why Conservatives Don't Make Us Feel Proud of America -- They Make Us Feel Embarrassed By Our Country
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post --- July 29, 2010
Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?
Political stupidity, U.S. style
Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.
The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?
And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.
Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent.
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.
Then there's the structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.
We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.
And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
The Washington Post --- July 29, 2010
Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?
Political stupidity, U.S. style
Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.
The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?
And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.
Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent.
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.
Then there's the structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.
We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.
And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
Right-Wingers Have No Respect for American Law -- They Simply Smear and Malign Judges They Disagree With
From Media Matters For America --- July 29, 2010:
Right wing rushes to malign AZ judge -- who Kyl called "highly competent, very well respected"
Following her decision to place an injunction on certain parts of Arizona's immigration law, right-wing media have attacked Judge Susan Bolton by suggesting she is a partisan who was "bought by" the Obama administration. However, Judge Bolton, a registered Independent, is widely respected, and has recently been praised by Arizona Republicans Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. Jon Kyl -- who recommended her nomination to then-Pres. Bill Clinton in 2000.
Right-wing media attacks and attempts to discredit Judge Bolton
RedState: There is anger "about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." In a July 28 RedState post, blogger David Poff wrote, "I know there is a great deal of anger and frustration out there... amongst the 70% of you who are racists that believe immigration laws should be enforced... about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." Poff also referred to Bolton as "this so-called federal judge."
National Review: Bolton was "determined ... to follow the Obama administration's political strategy." In a July 28 National Review Online blog, Heather Mac Donald claimed Bolton's ruling "maintain[ed] the Obama administration's carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens." Mac Donald also claimed that "so determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration's political strategy regarding the law's putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated."
Gingrich: "If anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think the judge in many ways is responsible." On the July 29 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich claimed Bolton "in many ways is responsible" if "anyone in Arizona gets hurt during this intervening period." From Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: You have the administration, speaker, but now you've got this Judge Bolton who has stepped in front of this moving train. And she has effectively stopped a lot of the parts of it from going into effect at midnight. Some of the parts in effect, other parts not. How much responsibility does she bear for what happens down there going forward?
GINGRICH: She should bear a great deal of responsibility and if anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think that judge in many ways is responsible. The people of Arizona with a freely elected legislature and freely elected governor were trying to solve a problem the federal government had created and now you have a federal judge stepping in, blocking the people of Arizona in their own freely elected institutions from trying to protect themselves. It's fundamentally wrong.
Fox Nation: "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." The Fox Nation suggested that Bolton was partisan, by posting a FoxNews.com article under the headline "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." From The Fox Nation:
Drudge suggests partisanship with headline "Clinton appointee made ruling." On July 29, Drudge linked to an AP article on Bolton's ruling with the headline "Clinton appointee made ruling..." From the Drudge Report:
But Arizona conservatives, including Gov. Brewer, have praised Judge Bolton
Gov. Brewer: Bolton is "so well informed" and has a "very, very good grasp of" the issues involved. On the July 22 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said she was "very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues":
VAN SUSTEREN: As you listened to the argument from the lawyer representing the United States, did you begin to worry about whether or not that your statute would stand?
BREWER: No. I feel very, very confident even more so now that we have been there and had the presentation. It was very well done and I'm very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues. I thought that it went very, very well. I feel very confident.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did the judge grill the lawyers on both sides?
BREWER: She did. She asked them questions. And of course some of the testimony from the earlier morning testimony kind of bled through to the afternoon testimony so it didn't have to be repeated again. But yes she did. She asked questions and tried to get them to qualify some of the issues. She was so well informed and had such a great grasp of what she was dealing with that it just gave you a really good sense of confidence.
Kyl: "People should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called Bolton "highly competent" and "very well respected," adding, "however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision." From America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: What's your expectation from this judge?
KYL: Well first of all, people should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge, and however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision. '
My guess is that she will parse the law, that is to say, she will perhaps extract certain portions of it that she thinks might be problematic and might enjoin the operations of those portions calling for additional briefing from the parties, perhaps, but that the biggest part of the law, I don't think she will enjoin, and that's essentially the part that says if a police officer stops someone in the normal course of his responsibilities for like a traffic ticket, for example, and then has reasonable cause to believe after that stop, that the individual is not here in the country lawfully, he may - or he should further inquire into their status. ... It's my opinion she will not enjoin that portion of the law.
Bolton nominated by Clinton at the recommendation of Kyl. Bolton was nominated to the United States Disctrict Court by President Clinton on Kyl's recommendation. Kyl reportedly said during her confirmation hearing, "There is one person in our state who's a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that's Judge Bolton ... And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved."
Arizona Daily Star: Bolton is a "registered independent." In a July 21 article, the Arizona Daily Star reported that "Judge Susan Bolton is a registered independent in Maricopa County. She was appointed to the federal court on Oct. 20, 2000, as an independent. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl." The article further notes:
The federal judge who will be ruling on whether to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect is known as a thorough, efficient, intelligent and fair jurist.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has earned that reputation during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona and 11 years before that as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.
"I don't think that either party could ask for a better judge," said Dave Cole a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge. "She is very deliberative, very reflective, runs a very tight ship in the courtroom. Very detached, objective, good at applying the law."
The consensus among members of the legal community interviewed for this story is that she's the right person to have making such an important decision.
Right wing rushes to malign AZ judge -- who Kyl called "highly competent, very well respected"
Following her decision to place an injunction on certain parts of Arizona's immigration law, right-wing media have attacked Judge Susan Bolton by suggesting she is a partisan who was "bought by" the Obama administration. However, Judge Bolton, a registered Independent, is widely respected, and has recently been praised by Arizona Republicans Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. Jon Kyl -- who recommended her nomination to then-Pres. Bill Clinton in 2000.
Right-wing media attacks and attempts to discredit Judge Bolton
RedState: There is anger "about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." In a July 28 RedState post, blogger David Poff wrote, "I know there is a great deal of anger and frustration out there... amongst the 70% of you who are racists that believe immigration laws should be enforced... about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." Poff also referred to Bolton as "this so-called federal judge."
National Review: Bolton was "determined ... to follow the Obama administration's political strategy." In a July 28 National Review Online blog, Heather Mac Donald claimed Bolton's ruling "maintain[ed] the Obama administration's carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens." Mac Donald also claimed that "so determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration's political strategy regarding the law's putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated."
Gingrich: "If anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think the judge in many ways is responsible." On the July 29 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich claimed Bolton "in many ways is responsible" if "anyone in Arizona gets hurt during this intervening period." From Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: You have the administration, speaker, but now you've got this Judge Bolton who has stepped in front of this moving train. And she has effectively stopped a lot of the parts of it from going into effect at midnight. Some of the parts in effect, other parts not. How much responsibility does she bear for what happens down there going forward?
GINGRICH: She should bear a great deal of responsibility and if anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think that judge in many ways is responsible. The people of Arizona with a freely elected legislature and freely elected governor were trying to solve a problem the federal government had created and now you have a federal judge stepping in, blocking the people of Arizona in their own freely elected institutions from trying to protect themselves. It's fundamentally wrong.
Fox Nation: "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." The Fox Nation suggested that Bolton was partisan, by posting a FoxNews.com article under the headline "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." From The Fox Nation:
Drudge suggests partisanship with headline "Clinton appointee made ruling." On July 29, Drudge linked to an AP article on Bolton's ruling with the headline "Clinton appointee made ruling..." From the Drudge Report:
But Arizona conservatives, including Gov. Brewer, have praised Judge Bolton
Gov. Brewer: Bolton is "so well informed" and has a "very, very good grasp of" the issues involved. On the July 22 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said she was "very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues":
VAN SUSTEREN: As you listened to the argument from the lawyer representing the United States, did you begin to worry about whether or not that your statute would stand?
BREWER: No. I feel very, very confident even more so now that we have been there and had the presentation. It was very well done and I'm very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues. I thought that it went very, very well. I feel very confident.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did the judge grill the lawyers on both sides?
BREWER: She did. She asked them questions. And of course some of the testimony from the earlier morning testimony kind of bled through to the afternoon testimony so it didn't have to be repeated again. But yes she did. She asked questions and tried to get them to qualify some of the issues. She was so well informed and had such a great grasp of what she was dealing with that it just gave you a really good sense of confidence.
Kyl: "People should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called Bolton "highly competent" and "very well respected," adding, "however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision." From America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: What's your expectation from this judge?
KYL: Well first of all, people should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge, and however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision. '
My guess is that she will parse the law, that is to say, she will perhaps extract certain portions of it that she thinks might be problematic and might enjoin the operations of those portions calling for additional briefing from the parties, perhaps, but that the biggest part of the law, I don't think she will enjoin, and that's essentially the part that says if a police officer stops someone in the normal course of his responsibilities for like a traffic ticket, for example, and then has reasonable cause to believe after that stop, that the individual is not here in the country lawfully, he may - or he should further inquire into their status. ... It's my opinion she will not enjoin that portion of the law.
Bolton nominated by Clinton at the recommendation of Kyl. Bolton was nominated to the United States Disctrict Court by President Clinton on Kyl's recommendation. Kyl reportedly said during her confirmation hearing, "There is one person in our state who's a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that's Judge Bolton ... And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved."
Arizona Daily Star: Bolton is a "registered independent." In a July 21 article, the Arizona Daily Star reported that "Judge Susan Bolton is a registered independent in Maricopa County. She was appointed to the federal court on Oct. 20, 2000, as an independent. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl." The article further notes:
The federal judge who will be ruling on whether to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect is known as a thorough, efficient, intelligent and fair jurist.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has earned that reputation during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona and 11 years before that as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.
"I don't think that either party could ask for a better judge," said Dave Cole a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge. "She is very deliberative, very reflective, runs a very tight ship in the courtroom. Very detached, objective, good at applying the law."
The consensus among members of the legal community interviewed for this story is that she's the right person to have making such an important decision.
Even The Right-Wing Can't Fool All Of The People All Of The Time
From The Washington Post -- July 29, 2010:
Poll shows opposition to health care overhaul declining
By David S. Hilzenrath
Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.
Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.
Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections.
Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said they had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the law this month, up from 50 percent in June.
Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier. The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.
The legislation was passed by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic president, and over the past month Democratic support for the legislation grew. Seventy-three percent of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion, up from 69 percent in June. Fifteen percent of Democrats expressed an unfavorable opinion, down from 19 percent in June.
A third of Democrats held a very favorable opinion of the health care overhaul.
The public remains split into rough thirds as to whether the law will leave their own family better off, worse off or unchanged, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported.
The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, including the "death panel" falsehood propagated by opponents of the legislation.
"A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of seniors said that the law 'allowed a government panel to make decisions about end of life care for people on Medicare', and another 17% said they didn't know," Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman wrote.
The survey of 1,504 adults was conducted from July 8 through July 13 and, for the broadest categories of respondents, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the Kaiser Family Foundation said.
Poll shows opposition to health care overhaul declining
By David S. Hilzenrath
Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.
Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.
Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections.
Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said they had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the law this month, up from 50 percent in June.
Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier. The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.
The legislation was passed by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic president, and over the past month Democratic support for the legislation grew. Seventy-three percent of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion, up from 69 percent in June. Fifteen percent of Democrats expressed an unfavorable opinion, down from 19 percent in June.
A third of Democrats held a very favorable opinion of the health care overhaul.
The public remains split into rough thirds as to whether the law will leave their own family better off, worse off or unchanged, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported.
The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, including the "death panel" falsehood propagated by opponents of the legislation.
"A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of seniors said that the law 'allowed a government panel to make decisions about end of life care for people on Medicare', and another 17% said they didn't know," Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman wrote.
The survey of 1,504 adults was conducted from July 8 through July 13 and, for the broadest categories of respondents, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the Kaiser Family Foundation said.
Right-Wing 24-7 Round-The-Clock Race-Baiting Attacks On President Obama
From Media Matters For America -- July 28, 2010:
"Race war": Right-Wing Race-Baiting takes on a Violent Tone
Continuing their long history of engaging in race-baiting attacks against President Obama, right-wing media figures have accused Obama, his administration, and the progressive movement of trying to start a "race war" in order to divide the public and "seize absolute power."
Right-wing media claim that Obama is trying to foment a "race war"
Breitbart: "Can Dems again falsely manufacture non-existent race war for November -- or are people's eyes finally wide open to this MSM-aided ploy?" In a July 28 Twitter post, Andrew Breitbart wrote:
Beck warns his audience: "They want a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it." On the July 12 broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks show, Glenn Beck warned his audience that the "left" wants "a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it."
Beck says progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." During the July 16 edition of his television show, Beck stated that progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." He then said, "Divided we will fall. They know it."
Beck: "They must have the race riot. ... It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans." On the July 19 edition of his radio show, Beck told his listeners: "They must have the race riot. They must have the races pitted against each other. They're pitting us against each other in every step of the way. It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans."
Flashback: Savage says, "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war ... in order to seize absolute power." On the October 8, 2008, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, after airing a clip of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Savage asserted: "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war. You want to ask me what I fear? I think Obama will empower the racists in this country and stir up a race war in order to seize absolute power." Savage later said: "I want you to call this show and tell me what you fear about Barack Hussein Obama as president."
Right-wing media routinely engage in race-baiting attacks against Obama
Media conservatives repeatedly attack Obama and his administration as "racist." Since July 28, 2009, when Glenn Beck called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," right-wing media figures have routinely called Obama and members of his administration "racist." During the March 9 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity defended Beck's statement, questioning whether Beck had said anything "over the top." Rush Limbaugh echoed these remarks when, after citing a campaign video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including among minorities and women, he said, "This is the regime at its racist best." Discussing the phony New Black Panthers scandal, radio host Jay Severin said Obama is "demonstrably a racist." Right-wing media figures have also labeled Obama administration officials -- including Eric Holder and other members of the Department of Justice -- "racist," accusing them of blatant reverse discrimination and of having "allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy."
Right-wing media level a wide variety of racially charged attacks against Obama. In addition to blatantly calling Obama a "racist," conservative media figures have engaged in other race-baiting attacks and have fired off a litany of vituperative allegations against the president. On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that "If Obama weren't black he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu." During the same edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Obama "wouldn't have been voted president if he weren't black." Beck continued his race-based fearmongering by warning that Obama's agenda is driven by "reparations" and a desire to "settle old racial scores." On Fox News, radio host Laura Ingraham said the Obama administration has "set back race relations in this country perhaps a generation."
"Race war": Right-Wing Race-Baiting takes on a Violent Tone
Continuing their long history of engaging in race-baiting attacks against President Obama, right-wing media figures have accused Obama, his administration, and the progressive movement of trying to start a "race war" in order to divide the public and "seize absolute power."
Right-wing media claim that Obama is trying to foment a "race war"
Breitbart: "Can Dems again falsely manufacture non-existent race war for November -- or are people's eyes finally wide open to this MSM-aided ploy?" In a July 28 Twitter post, Andrew Breitbart wrote:
Beck warns his audience: "They want a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it." On the July 12 broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks show, Glenn Beck warned his audience that the "left" wants "a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it."
Beck says progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." During the July 16 edition of his television show, Beck stated that progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." He then said, "Divided we will fall. They know it."
Beck: "They must have the race riot. ... It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans." On the July 19 edition of his radio show, Beck told his listeners: "They must have the race riot. They must have the races pitted against each other. They're pitting us against each other in every step of the way. It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans."
Flashback: Savage says, "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war ... in order to seize absolute power." On the October 8, 2008, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, after airing a clip of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Savage asserted: "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war. You want to ask me what I fear? I think Obama will empower the racists in this country and stir up a race war in order to seize absolute power." Savage later said: "I want you to call this show and tell me what you fear about Barack Hussein Obama as president."
Right-wing media routinely engage in race-baiting attacks against Obama
Media conservatives repeatedly attack Obama and his administration as "racist." Since July 28, 2009, when Glenn Beck called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," right-wing media figures have routinely called Obama and members of his administration "racist." During the March 9 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity defended Beck's statement, questioning whether Beck had said anything "over the top." Rush Limbaugh echoed these remarks when, after citing a campaign video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including among minorities and women, he said, "This is the regime at its racist best." Discussing the phony New Black Panthers scandal, radio host Jay Severin said Obama is "demonstrably a racist." Right-wing media figures have also labeled Obama administration officials -- including Eric Holder and other members of the Department of Justice -- "racist," accusing them of blatant reverse discrimination and of having "allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy."
Right-wing media level a wide variety of racially charged attacks against Obama. In addition to blatantly calling Obama a "racist," conservative media figures have engaged in other race-baiting attacks and have fired off a litany of vituperative allegations against the president. On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that "If Obama weren't black he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu." During the same edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Obama "wouldn't have been voted president if he weren't black." Beck continued his race-based fearmongering by warning that Obama's agenda is driven by "reparations" and a desire to "settle old racial scores." On Fox News, radio host Laura Ingraham said the Obama administration has "set back race relations in this country perhaps a generation."
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Republican Tea Party Contract On America
For the better part of the past year, Republicans have tried to come up with a new agenda for the American people, with mixed results.
However, with the Tea Party now the most potent force in Republican politics, and with the recent launch of the Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill garnering the support of Republican leaders like National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Pete Sessions and Republican Caucus Chair Mike Pence, the Republican Party agenda has become clear.
Republican leaders and Tea Party-supported Republican candidates can now rally around the "Republican Tea Party Contract On America" as the blueprint for how they would govern, as follows:
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America's seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors -- ending Medicare's guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors -- and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
7. Abolish the Department of Education
Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act -- which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe -- and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.
10. Repeal the 17th Amendment
Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator.
God Help America!
However, with the Tea Party now the most potent force in Republican politics, and with the recent launch of the Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill garnering the support of Republican leaders like National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Pete Sessions and Republican Caucus Chair Mike Pence, the Republican Party agenda has become clear.
Republican leaders and Tea Party-supported Republican candidates can now rally around the "Republican Tea Party Contract On America" as the blueprint for how they would govern, as follows:
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America's seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors -- ending Medicare's guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors -- and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
7. Abolish the Department of Education
Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act -- which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe -- and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.
10. Repeal the 17th Amendment
Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator.
God Help America!
Corporations Are Earning Record Profits But Have Stopped Hiring; Yet Republicans Want to Cut Corporate Taxes More and Blame the Unemployed
The Job Machine Grinds To a Halt
By Harold Meyerson
The Washington Post --- July 28, 2010:
Ain't no hiring. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas. General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly half of what veterans pull down.
The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits rise.
Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation of reduced incomes.
This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic manufacturing.
Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
By Harold Meyerson
The Washington Post --- July 28, 2010:
Ain't no hiring. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas. General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly half of what veterans pull down.
The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits rise.
Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation of reduced incomes.
This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic manufacturing.
Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
World Net Daily Turns Its Phony, Fake Kagan Smears Into Profit Centers to Scam and Defraud Its Own Readers
From Media Matters For America -- July 27, 2010:
WND throws the kitchen sink at Kagan to promote "Stop Kagan" scam
Promoting their "Stop Kagan" scam, which asks readers to send WorldNetDaily $24.95 in order to mail personalized letters opposing Elena Kagan to all 100 senators, WorldNetDaily repeated numerous myths and falsehoods about Kagan including Larry Klayman's ridiculous charges that Kagan violated her ethical duties and possibly criminal statutes through her work on "partial-birth abortion" bills.
Farah promotes $24.95 "Stop Kagan" letter-generating campaign as "a phenomenal bargain."
A July 27 WorldNetDaily article repeatedly promoted WND editor Joseph Farah's "Stop Kagan Campaign," which "delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95." The article reported that Farah, who is "orchestrating" the effort, "is asking all of his constituents" to join his campaign, which Farah touts as a "phenomenal bargain." Farah also claimed his campaign "makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped -- even by this Senate." WND has been promoting Farah's campaign for over a month.
However, email can be sent to senators for free. In fact, individuals can send letters to senators via email, which is virtually cost-free.
Additionally, U.S. Senate recommends directing questions and comments to "the senators from your state." Moreover, the U.S. Senate recommends that "[a]ll questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state" -- as opposed to all 100 U.S. Senators. According to the Senate website:
You can contact your senators by writing an e-mail or a letter, by calling, or by visiting. All questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state. Please be aware that as a matter of professional courtesy, many senators will acknowledge, but not respond to, a message from another senator's constituent.
WND touts Klayman's ridiculous charge that Kagan should be disbarred and prosecuted
WND promotes Klayman's charges that Kagan should be "disbarred" and "possibly subjected to criminal prosecution" for "alter[ing] an official scientific report" regarding "partial-birth abortion." According to a July 27 WorldNetDaily article, headlined "Papers prepped to disbar Elena Kagan: 'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'":
One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join - and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution - for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.
Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.
But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.
"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."
Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."
In fact, the claim that Kagan manipulated medical science on "partial-birth" abortion issue is false. Klayman's claim that -- as reported by WND -- Kagan "altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion" is not true. In fact, Kagan did not ask the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to change its medical findings, and ACOG did not do so. In addition, according to sworn testimony by a member of the ACOG task force that studied "partial-birth abortion," the task force itself determined that there were some situations in which an intact D&X -- the so-called "partial-birth abortion" procedure -- would be "clearly the best choice" to preserve the health of a pregnant woman.
Legal expert Goldstein concluded that complaints that Kagan manipulated medical science are meritless. WND asserted that "Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement." In fact, the suggestion that analyses are unanimous in concluding that Kagan changed the meaning of what ACOG said is false. For instance, while anti-abortion rights advocates have made that argument, Supreme Court expert and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein has debunked that charge:
The ACOG task force concluded that there were particular cases in which Intact D & X was the best available procedure for the mother's health. It reached that conclusion in October 1996, before Kagan's involvement in December 1996. The district court in Carhart found as a matter of fact that the task force reached that conclusion, relying on the sworn testimony of the task force's representative, as well as the task force's report. ACOG confirmed the chronology in its briefing in Carhart. Kagan's sworn testimony at her confirmation hearing is to the same effect.
There is no contrary evidence. And (as Kagan pointed out in her hearing testimony) the strong claim is on its face almost implausible, so it would need strong evidence to support it.
WND repeats falsehoods that Kagan is "against the U.S. military" and "banned" military recruiters
WND editor Farah claimed "a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military" and that Kagan "banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus." In the July 27 WND article, WND editor Farah claimed, "We will continue to put every member on notice -- Republicans and Democrats -- that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military." Farah also labeled Kagan a "radical antimilitary" "zealot" and said: "This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus... Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."
In fact, Kagan did not "ban" military recruiters. As Media Matters has documented, throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Indeed, the number of Harvard Law School students recruited by the military did not decrease during Kagan's tenure as dean. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters and during her confirmation hearing for solicitor general in 2009, Kagan pledged to defend the Solomon Amendment.
Kagan's support for the military is well-established. Kagan has repeatedly praised the military -- describing it as the "noblest of all professions" -- even while opposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and military veterans at Harvard Law have affirmed Kagan's support for the military.
WND repeats falsehood that Kagan's natural rights comments are controversial
WND: "According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of 'natural rights.' " The July 27 WND article also reported:
According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."
"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' - those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
However, Kagan's noncontroversial comments on natural rights echo those of Justice Thomas. Kagan's statement during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that she would rely on the Constitution and laws rather than natural rights is completely noncontroversial, and indeed, her comments echo what Justice Clarence Thomas said during his own confirmation hearing when he rejected the idea of using "natural law in constitutional adjudication." From Thomas' hearing:
"As I indicated, I believe, or attempted to allude to in my confirmation to the Court of Appeals, I don't see a role for the use of natural law in constitutional adjudication. My interest in exploring natural law and natural rights was purely in the context of political theory. I was interested in that. There were debates that I had with individuals, and I pursued that on a part-time basis. I was an agency chairman."
WND throws the kitchen sink at Kagan to promote "Stop Kagan" scam
Promoting their "Stop Kagan" scam, which asks readers to send WorldNetDaily $24.95 in order to mail personalized letters opposing Elena Kagan to all 100 senators, WorldNetDaily repeated numerous myths and falsehoods about Kagan including Larry Klayman's ridiculous charges that Kagan violated her ethical duties and possibly criminal statutes through her work on "partial-birth abortion" bills.
Farah promotes $24.95 "Stop Kagan" letter-generating campaign as "a phenomenal bargain."
A July 27 WorldNetDaily article repeatedly promoted WND editor Joseph Farah's "Stop Kagan Campaign," which "delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95." The article reported that Farah, who is "orchestrating" the effort, "is asking all of his constituents" to join his campaign, which Farah touts as a "phenomenal bargain." Farah also claimed his campaign "makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped -- even by this Senate." WND has been promoting Farah's campaign for over a month.
However, email can be sent to senators for free. In fact, individuals can send letters to senators via email, which is virtually cost-free.
Additionally, U.S. Senate recommends directing questions and comments to "the senators from your state." Moreover, the U.S. Senate recommends that "[a]ll questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state" -- as opposed to all 100 U.S. Senators. According to the Senate website:
You can contact your senators by writing an e-mail or a letter, by calling, or by visiting. All questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state. Please be aware that as a matter of professional courtesy, many senators will acknowledge, but not respond to, a message from another senator's constituent.
WND touts Klayman's ridiculous charge that Kagan should be disbarred and prosecuted
WND promotes Klayman's charges that Kagan should be "disbarred" and "possibly subjected to criminal prosecution" for "alter[ing] an official scientific report" regarding "partial-birth abortion." According to a July 27 WorldNetDaily article, headlined "Papers prepped to disbar Elena Kagan: 'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'":
One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join - and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution - for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.
Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.
But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.
"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."
Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."
In fact, the claim that Kagan manipulated medical science on "partial-birth" abortion issue is false. Klayman's claim that -- as reported by WND -- Kagan "altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion" is not true. In fact, Kagan did not ask the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to change its medical findings, and ACOG did not do so. In addition, according to sworn testimony by a member of the ACOG task force that studied "partial-birth abortion," the task force itself determined that there were some situations in which an intact D&X -- the so-called "partial-birth abortion" procedure -- would be "clearly the best choice" to preserve the health of a pregnant woman.
Legal expert Goldstein concluded that complaints that Kagan manipulated medical science are meritless. WND asserted that "Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement." In fact, the suggestion that analyses are unanimous in concluding that Kagan changed the meaning of what ACOG said is false. For instance, while anti-abortion rights advocates have made that argument, Supreme Court expert and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein has debunked that charge:
The ACOG task force concluded that there were particular cases in which Intact D & X was the best available procedure for the mother's health. It reached that conclusion in October 1996, before Kagan's involvement in December 1996. The district court in Carhart found as a matter of fact that the task force reached that conclusion, relying on the sworn testimony of the task force's representative, as well as the task force's report. ACOG confirmed the chronology in its briefing in Carhart. Kagan's sworn testimony at her confirmation hearing is to the same effect.
There is no contrary evidence. And (as Kagan pointed out in her hearing testimony) the strong claim is on its face almost implausible, so it would need strong evidence to support it.
WND repeats falsehoods that Kagan is "against the U.S. military" and "banned" military recruiters
WND editor Farah claimed "a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military" and that Kagan "banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus." In the July 27 WND article, WND editor Farah claimed, "We will continue to put every member on notice -- Republicans and Democrats -- that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military." Farah also labeled Kagan a "radical antimilitary" "zealot" and said: "This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus... Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."
In fact, Kagan did not "ban" military recruiters. As Media Matters has documented, throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Indeed, the number of Harvard Law School students recruited by the military did not decrease during Kagan's tenure as dean. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters and during her confirmation hearing for solicitor general in 2009, Kagan pledged to defend the Solomon Amendment.
Kagan's support for the military is well-established. Kagan has repeatedly praised the military -- describing it as the "noblest of all professions" -- even while opposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and military veterans at Harvard Law have affirmed Kagan's support for the military.
WND repeats falsehood that Kagan's natural rights comments are controversial
WND: "According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of 'natural rights.' " The July 27 WND article also reported:
According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."
"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' - those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
However, Kagan's noncontroversial comments on natural rights echo those of Justice Thomas. Kagan's statement during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that she would rely on the Constitution and laws rather than natural rights is completely noncontroversial, and indeed, her comments echo what Justice Clarence Thomas said during his own confirmation hearing when he rejected the idea of using "natural law in constitutional adjudication." From Thomas' hearing:
"As I indicated, I believe, or attempted to allude to in my confirmation to the Court of Appeals, I don't see a role for the use of natural law in constitutional adjudication. My interest in exploring natural law and natural rights was purely in the context of political theory. I was interested in that. There were debates that I had with individuals, and I pursued that on a part-time basis. I was an agency chairman."
The Lying Liars of Conservatism Are Still Galloping Full-Speed Ahead
From Media Matters for America -- July 27, 2010:
Still digging: Conservatives won't let up barrage of attacks on Shirley Sherrod
Even after Andrew Breitbart's video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech was uncovered as a deceptively edited excerpt that distorted her comments, conservatives have continued to attack Sherrod with a barrage of false or ludicrous smears.
Right-wing media ran with Breitbart's video to declare Sherrod "racist"
Breitbart posts Sherrod video, calls her "racist," claims "Context is everything." On July 19, Breitbart posted heavily edited video of Sherrod and falsely suggested that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her capacity as the Agriculture Department's Georgia Director of Rural Development. Breitbart said that the video provides "video evidence of racism coming from" Sherrod.
Right-wing media trumpet video, declare Sherrod a racist. Right-wing media subsequently promoted Breitbart's video, showering him with praise and agreeing that it proved Sherrod is a racist.
NAACP releases full tape vindicating Sherrod. The NAACP released the full video of Sherrod's comments on the evening of July 20. In the video, Sherrod states that "working with him [the white farmer] made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't." She went on to state that "they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have."
Even after Breitbart's claims are debunked, right-wing media declare Sherrod a "racist," "race-baiter"
Even after Breitbart's story dissolved, certain right-wing media figures absurdly continued to accuse Sherrod of racism.
Limbaugh: "Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. ... If you listen to the whole speech ... she's racist." On the July 22 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed,"Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. This woman did not have an epiphany when she was at the USDA. When she was speaking to the NAACP, she did not have an epiphany. ... If you listen to the whole speech, as people have, 43 minutes, she's racist. The NAACP is racist."
Levin: Sherrod is a "race-baiter." On July 23, Mark Levin called Sherrod a "race-baiter," "an idiot" and claimed, "Breitbart was right about her."
Hannity: Sherrod "still admits" "discriminating against this white farmer." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Sean Hannity said that Sherrod "still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer" even though the full context of Sherrod's comments were available at the time of his program.
Hoft: "Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks." In a July 22 Gateway Pundit post, Hoft wrote, "Barack Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks at an NAACP event in March." Hoft posted part of a Wall Street Journal article about the phone call and again claimed, "Far left anti-white radical Shirley Sherrod is linked to terrorist Bill Ayers like Barack Obama."
Andy McCarthy: "Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism." In a July 22 National Review Online post, Andy McCarthy wrote: "I don't understand the sudden pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, in Take Two, we are to understand that Ms. Sherrod was not exhibiting racism. Instead, 'taken in context,' we're told, she is actually a heroic figure who has transcended the racist views that, given the terrible things she saw growing up in the South, were understandable." McCarthy posted parts of her speech and wrote: "Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech."
Conservatives claim Sherrod is a "Marxist," favors "redistribution," and is a "radical"
Breitbart: Sherrod has "Marxist way of looking at the world". On the July 26 edition of The Savage Nation, Andrew Breitbart said that when viewing "the entirety of the tape" "you will see a person who has a very Marxist way of looking at the world."
Beck: Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistributionist qualities to her." On the July 21 edition of his radio show, Beck stated that Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistribution qualities to her." He further said that Sherrod is "class warfare just not race warfare." On his Fox News show, Beck said Sherrod should have been made a "czar" because "she fits in" with the "Maoists" in the Obama administration.
Limbaugh: Sherrod supports "the need for redistribution." On the July 21 edition of his show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Sherrod was a supporter of "Obamunism" and favors "the haves versus the have-nots and the need for redistribution."
Crowley: Sherrod may be among "radicals, racists, socialists" "stocked" in Obama administration. Fox News' Monica Crowley said Sherrod may be among the "radicals, racists, socialists" that are "stocked" in the Obama administration. Crowley asked, "How many Van Joneses are in this administration? How many Shirley Sherrods?"
Hoft: Sherrod is "communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer." Hoft called Sherrod "a communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer" and "white farmer-hater."
Mattera: "The broad is a Marxist." Human Events editor Jason Mattera posted on his Twitter account: "Sherrod shouldn't be given her job back. The broad is a Marxist. I have no sympathy for her."
Derbyshire: Sherrod is "a revolutionary radical." On his "Radio Derb" podcast, National Review's John Derbyshire called Sherrod "a revolutionary radical."
American Spectator's Lord claimed Sherrod's story about relative's lynching was "false"
Spectator's Lord: Sherrod lynching story "did not happen" and "not true." Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator on July 26, claimed that Sherrod's story in her NAACP speech about how her relative Bobby Hall had been lynched was "not true. It did not happen." Lord's explanation was that because Hull was beaten to death by three law enforcement officials, rather than hanged, he had not been lynched. Lord went on to ask, "Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add 'glamour' to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?" He adds that "nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court" -- in the ruling they issued following the trial of Hall's killers in the 1940s -- "says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched."
Experts on history of lynching rebut Lord's Sherrod claim. In interviews with Media Matters, several experts on the history of lynching criticized Lord's article. Christopher Waldrep, a professor of history at San Francisco State University, said "I don't know how in the world you can say" Hall's death is "not a lynching," adding that "People at the time had no question that it was a lynching. I mean, there was no particular debate." Michael Pfeifer, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice likewise concluded that "Jeffrey Lord's reasoning is fallacious" and "profoundly ahistorical." Pfeifer added that while the word "lynching" "has always eluded simple, consensus definitions," its use "was most often, but never exclusively, hanging (shootings, beatings, burnings, etc. were also called 'lynchings.')"
Lord's Spectator colleagues criticize his article. On July 26, John Toobin wrote, "What on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? ... Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies." Philip Klein wrote, " I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to 'get him.'"
Lord stands by his claims. In a July 27 blog post, Lord stood by his article, writing:
Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."
I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority.
So to say that Bobby Hall was lynched is, factually, according to the Supreme Court and, if you prefer, Webster's, not true. No mob. Therefore no "mob action." And the three had "legal authority."
Yet another Spectator colleague criticizes his follow-up. In a July 27 post, W. James Antle called Lord's follow-up "wildly unpersuasive, to put it mildly," noting that Lord's definition of lynching would exclude the killings of Emmett Till and James Byrd, and that "Both of these high-profile, racially motivated, 20th-century murders are widely and popularly described as lynchings."
Right-wing media attack Sherrod's role in discrimination suit against USDA
Blumer, Shapiro, Breitbart use Sherrod's role in discrimination suit to attack her. Conservative media outlets have attacked Sherrod's participation in a lawsuit charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture with discrimination against African American farmers. Tom Blumer claimed that the class-action lawsuit "has a checkered history" and that Sherrod's participation in the case "deserve[s] further scrutiny, Ben Shapiro said that USDA "had been shaken down by Sherrod," and Andrew Breitbart suggested that Sherrod had been fired to prevent people from "looking into" the lawsuit.
Congressional Republicans supported black farmers' allegations of discrimination by USDA. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills seeking to allow more African American farmers to join the settlement of discrimination claims by USDA, and said of the settlement, "I'm not going to give up until we get a good ending for it." Former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) has also sponsored or co-sponsored bills to allow more African American farmers to participate in the settlement. In 2004, as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Chabot held an oversight hearing on the "Status of the Implementation of the Pigford v. Glickman Settlement." In his opening statement, Chabot noted that "in an ironic twist, the process that was created to provide a forum for those whose claims had been shut out has itself shut out nearly two-thirds of all who wanted to have their discrimination claims heard."
Federal judge, independent study found gross racial disparities in USDA programs. In 1999, federal district Judge Paul Friedman wrote an opinion approving the settlement in the original Pigford v. Glickman settlement. In that opinion, Friedman recounted the history of discrimination against African American farmers by the USDA. The Congressional Research Service reported that a USDA-commissioned study found that "found that from 1990 to 1995, minority participation in FSA programs was very low and minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans."
Conservative blogs attempt to smear Sherrod by attacking SNCC
Hoft, Illinois Review attempt to connect Sherrod to William Ayers through SNCC. In a post promoted by Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, conservative blog Illinois Review attempted to connect Sherrod to William Ayers, writing, "Ms. Sherrod's husband is a former honcho in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee back in the 1960's. You can read more about it in Bill Ayers book 'Fugitive Days.' Yes, that Bill Ayers. He was involved in SNCC as well."
Sweetness & Light: Charles Sherrod was "one of the founders" of SNCC, which "evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group." The blog Sweetness & Light claimed, "Charles Sherrod was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The SNCC quickly evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group under Stokely Carmichael and H. Rapp Brown."
Sites ignore SNCC's role in the civil rights movement. None of the sites notes SNCC's role in the lunch counter sit-ins and "freedom rides" in the South they organized and participated in as part of the civil rights movement.
Still digging: Conservatives won't let up barrage of attacks on Shirley Sherrod
Even after Andrew Breitbart's video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech was uncovered as a deceptively edited excerpt that distorted her comments, conservatives have continued to attack Sherrod with a barrage of false or ludicrous smears.
Right-wing media ran with Breitbart's video to declare Sherrod "racist"
Breitbart posts Sherrod video, calls her "racist," claims "Context is everything." On July 19, Breitbart posted heavily edited video of Sherrod and falsely suggested that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her capacity as the Agriculture Department's Georgia Director of Rural Development. Breitbart said that the video provides "video evidence of racism coming from" Sherrod.
Right-wing media trumpet video, declare Sherrod a racist. Right-wing media subsequently promoted Breitbart's video, showering him with praise and agreeing that it proved Sherrod is a racist.
NAACP releases full tape vindicating Sherrod. The NAACP released the full video of Sherrod's comments on the evening of July 20. In the video, Sherrod states that "working with him [the white farmer] made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't." She went on to state that "they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have."
Even after Breitbart's claims are debunked, right-wing media declare Sherrod a "racist," "race-baiter"
Even after Breitbart's story dissolved, certain right-wing media figures absurdly continued to accuse Sherrod of racism.
Limbaugh: "Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. ... If you listen to the whole speech ... she's racist." On the July 22 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed,"Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. This woman did not have an epiphany when she was at the USDA. When she was speaking to the NAACP, she did not have an epiphany. ... If you listen to the whole speech, as people have, 43 minutes, she's racist. The NAACP is racist."
Levin: Sherrod is a "race-baiter." On July 23, Mark Levin called Sherrod a "race-baiter," "an idiot" and claimed, "Breitbart was right about her."
Hannity: Sherrod "still admits" "discriminating against this white farmer." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Sean Hannity said that Sherrod "still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer" even though the full context of Sherrod's comments were available at the time of his program.
Hoft: "Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks." In a July 22 Gateway Pundit post, Hoft wrote, "Barack Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks at an NAACP event in March." Hoft posted part of a Wall Street Journal article about the phone call and again claimed, "Far left anti-white radical Shirley Sherrod is linked to terrorist Bill Ayers like Barack Obama."
Andy McCarthy: "Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism." In a July 22 National Review Online post, Andy McCarthy wrote: "I don't understand the sudden pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, in Take Two, we are to understand that Ms. Sherrod was not exhibiting racism. Instead, 'taken in context,' we're told, she is actually a heroic figure who has transcended the racist views that, given the terrible things she saw growing up in the South, were understandable." McCarthy posted parts of her speech and wrote: "Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech."
Conservatives claim Sherrod is a "Marxist," favors "redistribution," and is a "radical"
Breitbart: Sherrod has "Marxist way of looking at the world". On the July 26 edition of The Savage Nation, Andrew Breitbart said that when viewing "the entirety of the tape" "you will see a person who has a very Marxist way of looking at the world."
Beck: Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistributionist qualities to her." On the July 21 edition of his radio show, Beck stated that Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistribution qualities to her." He further said that Sherrod is "class warfare just not race warfare." On his Fox News show, Beck said Sherrod should have been made a "czar" because "she fits in" with the "Maoists" in the Obama administration.
Limbaugh: Sherrod supports "the need for redistribution." On the July 21 edition of his show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Sherrod was a supporter of "Obamunism" and favors "the haves versus the have-nots and the need for redistribution."
Crowley: Sherrod may be among "radicals, racists, socialists" "stocked" in Obama administration. Fox News' Monica Crowley said Sherrod may be among the "radicals, racists, socialists" that are "stocked" in the Obama administration. Crowley asked, "How many Van Joneses are in this administration? How many Shirley Sherrods?"
Hoft: Sherrod is "communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer." Hoft called Sherrod "a communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer" and "white farmer-hater."
Mattera: "The broad is a Marxist." Human Events editor Jason Mattera posted on his Twitter account: "Sherrod shouldn't be given her job back. The broad is a Marxist. I have no sympathy for her."
Derbyshire: Sherrod is "a revolutionary radical." On his "Radio Derb" podcast, National Review's John Derbyshire called Sherrod "a revolutionary radical."
American Spectator's Lord claimed Sherrod's story about relative's lynching was "false"
Spectator's Lord: Sherrod lynching story "did not happen" and "not true." Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator on July 26, claimed that Sherrod's story in her NAACP speech about how her relative Bobby Hall had been lynched was "not true. It did not happen." Lord's explanation was that because Hull was beaten to death by three law enforcement officials, rather than hanged, he had not been lynched. Lord went on to ask, "Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add 'glamour' to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?" He adds that "nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court" -- in the ruling they issued following the trial of Hall's killers in the 1940s -- "says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched."
Experts on history of lynching rebut Lord's Sherrod claim. In interviews with Media Matters, several experts on the history of lynching criticized Lord's article. Christopher Waldrep, a professor of history at San Francisco State University, said "I don't know how in the world you can say" Hall's death is "not a lynching," adding that "People at the time had no question that it was a lynching. I mean, there was no particular debate." Michael Pfeifer, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice likewise concluded that "Jeffrey Lord's reasoning is fallacious" and "profoundly ahistorical." Pfeifer added that while the word "lynching" "has always eluded simple, consensus definitions," its use "was most often, but never exclusively, hanging (shootings, beatings, burnings, etc. were also called 'lynchings.')"
Lord's Spectator colleagues criticize his article. On July 26, John Toobin wrote, "What on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? ... Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies." Philip Klein wrote, " I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to 'get him.'"
Lord stands by his claims. In a July 27 blog post, Lord stood by his article, writing:
Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."
I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority.
So to say that Bobby Hall was lynched is, factually, according to the Supreme Court and, if you prefer, Webster's, not true. No mob. Therefore no "mob action." And the three had "legal authority."
Yet another Spectator colleague criticizes his follow-up. In a July 27 post, W. James Antle called Lord's follow-up "wildly unpersuasive, to put it mildly," noting that Lord's definition of lynching would exclude the killings of Emmett Till and James Byrd, and that "Both of these high-profile, racially motivated, 20th-century murders are widely and popularly described as lynchings."
Right-wing media attack Sherrod's role in discrimination suit against USDA
Blumer, Shapiro, Breitbart use Sherrod's role in discrimination suit to attack her. Conservative media outlets have attacked Sherrod's participation in a lawsuit charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture with discrimination against African American farmers. Tom Blumer claimed that the class-action lawsuit "has a checkered history" and that Sherrod's participation in the case "deserve[s] further scrutiny, Ben Shapiro said that USDA "had been shaken down by Sherrod," and Andrew Breitbart suggested that Sherrod had been fired to prevent people from "looking into" the lawsuit.
Congressional Republicans supported black farmers' allegations of discrimination by USDA. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills seeking to allow more African American farmers to join the settlement of discrimination claims by USDA, and said of the settlement, "I'm not going to give up until we get a good ending for it." Former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) has also sponsored or co-sponsored bills to allow more African American farmers to participate in the settlement. In 2004, as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Chabot held an oversight hearing on the "Status of the Implementation of the Pigford v. Glickman Settlement." In his opening statement, Chabot noted that "in an ironic twist, the process that was created to provide a forum for those whose claims had been shut out has itself shut out nearly two-thirds of all who wanted to have their discrimination claims heard."
Federal judge, independent study found gross racial disparities in USDA programs. In 1999, federal district Judge Paul Friedman wrote an opinion approving the settlement in the original Pigford v. Glickman settlement. In that opinion, Friedman recounted the history of discrimination against African American farmers by the USDA. The Congressional Research Service reported that a USDA-commissioned study found that "found that from 1990 to 1995, minority participation in FSA programs was very low and minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans."
Conservative blogs attempt to smear Sherrod by attacking SNCC
Hoft, Illinois Review attempt to connect Sherrod to William Ayers through SNCC. In a post promoted by Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, conservative blog Illinois Review attempted to connect Sherrod to William Ayers, writing, "Ms. Sherrod's husband is a former honcho in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee back in the 1960's. You can read more about it in Bill Ayers book 'Fugitive Days.' Yes, that Bill Ayers. He was involved in SNCC as well."
Sweetness & Light: Charles Sherrod was "one of the founders" of SNCC, which "evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group." The blog Sweetness & Light claimed, "Charles Sherrod was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The SNCC quickly evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group under Stokely Carmichael and H. Rapp Brown."
Sites ignore SNCC's role in the civil rights movement. None of the sites notes SNCC's role in the lunch counter sit-ins and "freedom rides" in the South they organized and participated in as part of the civil rights movement.
Give 'Em Hell, Barry!
Obama Takes Off The Gloves!
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post -- July 27, 2010:
President Obama on Tuesday urged lawmakers to move forward on a series of Democratic initiatives before they leave next week for their summer break, saying voters "sent us here to represent their interests, not our own."
His comments came after an hour-long, Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders from both parties. Obama called the meeting "productive," but in his remarks, he repeatedly accused the Republicans of blocking legislation for political gain.
"We shouldn't let America's small businesses be held hostage to partisan politics," Obama said as he continued an effort to portray Republicans as the party of big corporations and Wall Street firms.
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post -- July 27, 2010:
President Obama on Tuesday urged lawmakers to move forward on a series of Democratic initiatives before they leave next week for their summer break, saying voters "sent us here to represent their interests, not our own."
His comments came after an hour-long, Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders from both parties. Obama called the meeting "productive," but in his remarks, he repeatedly accused the Republicans of blocking legislation for political gain.
"We shouldn't let America's small businesses be held hostage to partisan politics," Obama said as he continued an effort to portray Republicans as the party of big corporations and Wall Street firms.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Republican Party's Persistent, Perpetual and Pernicious Racism
"No More Apologies -- It's Time To Stand Up For Our Convictions"
By Howard Dean
The Huffington Post -- July 26, 2010:
For some time now, various "reporters" and on-air personalities on the Fox News Network have failed to report the full story or relevant facts, instead indulging in race baiting in order to exploit people's fears and crank up the fringe of their audience. This was exemplified by Glenn Beck's nightly assault on Van Jones earlier this year. Recently, Fox has cranked up stories about the Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute a voter intimidation case against a Black Panther group and even worse, calls for Atty. General Holder's resignation. And now, the Sherrod Debacle.
Turns out Van Jones' name was added to a website without his permission, a fact the group finally admitted some time after he resigned. And maybe he said some things about the Republican Party that he shouldn't have -- but that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a brilliant environmental organizer. It also turns out that it was the Bush Administration who decided not to prosecute the case against the black panthers because as Bush's Assistant Attorney General Perez testified, "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statues, and under the Obama Administration Justice Department a judgment was won in a civil case.
And by now we all know how the Sherrod story went down. Despite his claims to the contrary on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace didn't have his facts quite right. As a media matters study showed, Fox News did in fact spend a lot of air-time on July 19th and 20th cranking up the false story. Not to mention that foxnews.com bragged that shortly after they posted a "report" about the video Mrs. Sherrod resigned.
None of this is new. I don't believe all or even most of the Republican party voters are racist, but going at least as far back as Lee Atwater, the Willie Horton ads, and the attacks on John McCain in the South Carolina primaries in both 2000 and 2008, the immigration debate in 2006, there is a persistent willingness in the Republican party to use race baiting for electoral advantage. The fact is, this is racist behavior.
Now if the Tea Party, which is not a professional group of politicians have the decency to repudiate the racist fringe in their group, why can't the Republicans? Obviously they think this approach works on the margins, but even if this stuff works, it sure doesn't produce good leaders or a civil society, and it certainly doesn't produce a stronger America, it produces an even more polarized and angry America. It's that willingness to put party ahead of country that has the Republicans in such low regard.
There are lessons to be learned here. Tom Vilsack stated the first one best: don't make decisions without all the facts. To that I would add: consider the source. If it is a group of individuals or a corporation that has chronically ignored the facts and engaged in race baiting in the past, they are likely to do it again. A report by Fox News, Breitbart or Matt Drudge, ought to have -- as it does in most people's minds -- little credibility.
The second lesson is harder. Stand up for what you believe in. I admire Nancy Pelosi because she is tough, gets things done, and doesn't take crap from the right wing or any one else. After the year and a half this country has just been through, it is pretty obvious that the right-wing has no intention of cooperating with anyone, and that they will do anything to regain power, just as they were willing to do anything to hold on to it. The only reasonable approach is to stand up to them as you would any group of bullies. Call them out for what they do- or don't do as the case may be. If the Tea Party can call out some of their own members, surely we can call out a group of people who have put their party ahead of their country.
By Howard Dean
The Huffington Post -- July 26, 2010:
For some time now, various "reporters" and on-air personalities on the Fox News Network have failed to report the full story or relevant facts, instead indulging in race baiting in order to exploit people's fears and crank up the fringe of their audience. This was exemplified by Glenn Beck's nightly assault on Van Jones earlier this year. Recently, Fox has cranked up stories about the Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute a voter intimidation case against a Black Panther group and even worse, calls for Atty. General Holder's resignation. And now, the Sherrod Debacle.
Turns out Van Jones' name was added to a website without his permission, a fact the group finally admitted some time after he resigned. And maybe he said some things about the Republican Party that he shouldn't have -- but that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a brilliant environmental organizer. It also turns out that it was the Bush Administration who decided not to prosecute the case against the black panthers because as Bush's Assistant Attorney General Perez testified, "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statues, and under the Obama Administration Justice Department a judgment was won in a civil case.
And by now we all know how the Sherrod story went down. Despite his claims to the contrary on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace didn't have his facts quite right. As a media matters study showed, Fox News did in fact spend a lot of air-time on July 19th and 20th cranking up the false story. Not to mention that foxnews.com bragged that shortly after they posted a "report" about the video Mrs. Sherrod resigned.
None of this is new. I don't believe all or even most of the Republican party voters are racist, but going at least as far back as Lee Atwater, the Willie Horton ads, and the attacks on John McCain in the South Carolina primaries in both 2000 and 2008, the immigration debate in 2006, there is a persistent willingness in the Republican party to use race baiting for electoral advantage. The fact is, this is racist behavior.
Now if the Tea Party, which is not a professional group of politicians have the decency to repudiate the racist fringe in their group, why can't the Republicans? Obviously they think this approach works on the margins, but even if this stuff works, it sure doesn't produce good leaders or a civil society, and it certainly doesn't produce a stronger America, it produces an even more polarized and angry America. It's that willingness to put party ahead of country that has the Republicans in such low regard.
There are lessons to be learned here. Tom Vilsack stated the first one best: don't make decisions without all the facts. To that I would add: consider the source. If it is a group of individuals or a corporation that has chronically ignored the facts and engaged in race baiting in the past, they are likely to do it again. A report by Fox News, Breitbart or Matt Drudge, ought to have -- as it does in most people's minds -- little credibility.
The second lesson is harder. Stand up for what you believe in. I admire Nancy Pelosi because she is tough, gets things done, and doesn't take crap from the right wing or any one else. After the year and a half this country has just been through, it is pretty obvious that the right-wing has no intention of cooperating with anyone, and that they will do anything to regain power, just as they were willing to do anything to hold on to it. The only reasonable approach is to stand up to them as you would any group of bullies. Call them out for what they do- or don't do as the case may be. If the Tea Party can call out some of their own members, surely we can call out a group of people who have put their party ahead of their country.
"Breitbarting" -- A New Word That Will Live In Infamy
By Robert Creamer
The Huffington Post --July 26, 2010:
Congratulations to Andrew Breitbart -- He May Have Succeeded in Having a New Word Named After Him -- Like Quisling Did During World War II.
To "Breitbart" - To intentionally make something appear to be its opposite for political ends. The pundit Breitbarted Shirley Sherrod.
It's not everyday that someone gets a new word named after him. But that is exactly what is about to happen to rightwing blogger Andrew Breitbart.
Breitbart is the guy who last week intentionally published excerpts of the talk made by Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod that made her speech about racial reconciliation look as if she was herself a racist. Of course when you saw the entire speech it was clear that just the opposite was true.
This is nothing new for Breitbart -- or his blog BigGovernment.com -- who was also the source of the doctored videos that helped destroy ACORN. But this particular intentional distortion stands out because it was so crystal clear. Breitbart's video convinced the entire mainstream media and the Department of Agriculture, the White House and the NAACP of Sherrod's guilt. Of course, within a matter of 24 hours, when the entire speech was published, it became clear to everyone that Breitbart had convinced the world that Sherrod was guilty of saying exactly the opposite of what she actually said.
Now it is Breitbart whose name has become synonymous with political sleaze. And it is likely that within a few years, his name will appear in the dictionary as a verb -- "to breitbart your enemy" -- to claim for political purposes, that he has done the exact opposite of what he actually did.
When a new word is named for a person, it's called an eponym. If Breitbart is in fact memorialized in the pages of Merriam-Webster with an eponym, he will join the list of other scoundrels whose acts are were so outrageous -- or at least notorious -- that they were accorded words of their own. Like Quisling, for example.
And just think of the legacy of Andrew Breitbart. The entire country -- and now much of the world -- knows that he personally embodies the worst tradition of the false campaign smear. He has taken the art to new highs of brazenness. He surely deserves to have his name affixed forever to any attempt to intentionally claim for political purposes that someone did just the opposite of what they actually did. What an honor to join the ranks of people like Draco, Guillotine and Shrapnel. "To Breitbart" -- I know it will make him so proud.
The Huffington Post --July 26, 2010:
Congratulations to Andrew Breitbart -- He May Have Succeeded in Having a New Word Named After Him -- Like Quisling Did During World War II.
To "Breitbart" - To intentionally make something appear to be its opposite for political ends. The pundit Breitbarted Shirley Sherrod.
It's not everyday that someone gets a new word named after him. But that is exactly what is about to happen to rightwing blogger Andrew Breitbart.
Breitbart is the guy who last week intentionally published excerpts of the talk made by Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod that made her speech about racial reconciliation look as if she was herself a racist. Of course when you saw the entire speech it was clear that just the opposite was true.
This is nothing new for Breitbart -- or his blog BigGovernment.com -- who was also the source of the doctored videos that helped destroy ACORN. But this particular intentional distortion stands out because it was so crystal clear. Breitbart's video convinced the entire mainstream media and the Department of Agriculture, the White House and the NAACP of Sherrod's guilt. Of course, within a matter of 24 hours, when the entire speech was published, it became clear to everyone that Breitbart had convinced the world that Sherrod was guilty of saying exactly the opposite of what she actually said.
Now it is Breitbart whose name has become synonymous with political sleaze. And it is likely that within a few years, his name will appear in the dictionary as a verb -- "to breitbart your enemy" -- to claim for political purposes, that he has done the exact opposite of what he actually did.
When a new word is named for a person, it's called an eponym. If Breitbart is in fact memorialized in the pages of Merriam-Webster with an eponym, he will join the list of other scoundrels whose acts are were so outrageous -- or at least notorious -- that they were accorded words of their own. Like Quisling, for example.
And just think of the legacy of Andrew Breitbart. The entire country -- and now much of the world -- knows that he personally embodies the worst tradition of the false campaign smear. He has taken the art to new highs of brazenness. He surely deserves to have his name affixed forever to any attempt to intentionally claim for political purposes that someone did just the opposite of what they actually did. What an honor to join the ranks of people like Draco, Guillotine and Shrapnel. "To Breitbart" -- I know it will make him so proud.
Right-Wing Media Hate Propaganda Machine Is In All-Out War Mode
Glenn Beck's Incendiary Angst Is Dangerously Close to Having a Body Count
By Eric Boehlert
The Huffington Post -- July 27, 2010:
On his Monday radio show, Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, "nobody knew" what the non-profit was.
Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/Socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by "thugs" and "bullies" and involved in "the nasty of the nastiest," like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a "mass organization to seize power."
As Media Matters reported, the conspiratorial host had mentioned (read: attacked) the little-known progressive organization nearly 30 times on his Fox program alone since it premiered in 2009, including several mentions in the last month. (Beck's the only TV talker who regularly references the foundation, according to our Nexis searches.)
So, yes, Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and "turn the light of day" onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.
And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He's the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.
Thankfully, the planned domestic terrorist attack never came to pass because California Highway Patrol officers pulled Williams over for drunk driving on his way to his killing spree. Williams quickly opened fire, wounding two officers during a lengthy shootout. Luckily, Williams wasn't able to act out the ultimate goal of his dark anger -- fueled by the TV news he watched -- about how "Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," as his mother put it. Williams wasn't able to open fire inside the offices of the Tides Foundation, an organization "nobody knew" about until Glenn Beck started targeting it.
And thankfully, Williams wasn't able to take his place alongside a growing list of domestic, anti-government terrorists, such as the recent Pentagon shooter, the Holocaust Museum gunman, the kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and the Pittsburgh cop-killer who set up an ambush because he was convinced Obama was going to take away his guns.
All the vigilante attacks appear to have been fueled by an almost pathological hatred for the U.S. government -- the same open hatred that right-wing bloggers, AM talk radio hosts, and Fox News' lineup of anti-government prophets have been frantically fueling for the last year, pushing doomsday warnings of America's democratic demise under President Obama.
And the sad the sad truth is we're going to see more like Byron Williams. We're going to see more attempts at vigilante violence during the Age of Obama simply because the right-wing media, lead by Beck, continue to gleefully (albeit irresponsibly) stoke dangerous fires with the kind of relentlessly incendiary rhetoric that has no match in terms of modern day, mainstream use in American politics or media.
Just listen to Glenn Beck:
* Progressives "are sucking the blood out of the republic" and are "gonna start getting more and more violent."
* "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."
* "[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun" and "before I acquiesce and be silent."
* "This game is for keeps"; "[Y]ou can shoot me in the head ... but there will be 10 others that line up."
* "There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America"; "God help us in an emergency."'
And don't forget about the unhinged response when health care reform was passed in March: "Get down on your knees and pray. Pray. It's September 11th all over again, except that we didn't have the collapsing buildings." After financial reform passed last week, Beck told his audience, "Your republic is over."
Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart's website recently tagged Obama as the "suicide-bomber-in-chief," while the conservative Washington Times just last week published an op-ed -- by a former congressman, no less -- asserting the president poses more of a threat to America than al Qaeda.
Note that the radical right's media rhetoric is no longer even political in a partisan sense. Instead, it's purely revolutionary. It isn't, "We think taxes should be lower" or "Obama should be more hawkish overseas." It's, "There's an insidious and deadly plot afoot by Democrats and progressives to strip Americans of their freedom and this country of its greatness." Obama is now the incarnation of evil (the Antichrist?), and his driving hatred for America, as well as for democracy, runs so deep that he ran for president in order to destroy the United States from inside the Oval Office.
Rush Limbaugh: "Our country is being overthrown from within."
And this summer, the latest toxic twist to that line of attack is that Obama is destroying America on purpose in order to exact revenge from white America for the historic sin of slavery. (Think: Black Manchurian Candidate.) The GOP Noise Machine is now mixing a vile cocktail by stirring revolutionary rhetoric with hateful race-baiting.
It's impossible to argue that today's avalanche of insurrectionist rhetoric doesn't have a real world effect. Or that those on the fringes don't find comfort in seeing and hearing their worst fears legitimized on AM radio and Fox News.
The consequences of the doomsday programming seem entirely predictable. As Jeffrey Jones, a professor of media and politics at Old Dominion University, recently explained to the New York Times in regard to Beck's rhetoric, "People hear their values are under attack and they get worried. It becomes an opportunity for them to stand up and do something."
Indeed, the relentless message that right-wing audiences hear is unequivocal and inescapable: Do something! Take action!
And last week, Byron Williams, likely inspired by Glenn Beck's Tides obsession, grabbed his guns and set out to do just that.
By Eric Boehlert
The Huffington Post -- July 27, 2010:
On his Monday radio show, Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, "nobody knew" what the non-profit was.
Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/Socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by "thugs" and "bullies" and involved in "the nasty of the nastiest," like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a "mass organization to seize power."
As Media Matters reported, the conspiratorial host had mentioned (read: attacked) the little-known progressive organization nearly 30 times on his Fox program alone since it premiered in 2009, including several mentions in the last month. (Beck's the only TV talker who regularly references the foundation, according to our Nexis searches.)
So, yes, Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and "turn the light of day" onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.
And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He's the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.
Thankfully, the planned domestic terrorist attack never came to pass because California Highway Patrol officers pulled Williams over for drunk driving on his way to his killing spree. Williams quickly opened fire, wounding two officers during a lengthy shootout. Luckily, Williams wasn't able to act out the ultimate goal of his dark anger -- fueled by the TV news he watched -- about how "Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," as his mother put it. Williams wasn't able to open fire inside the offices of the Tides Foundation, an organization "nobody knew" about until Glenn Beck started targeting it.
And thankfully, Williams wasn't able to take his place alongside a growing list of domestic, anti-government terrorists, such as the recent Pentagon shooter, the Holocaust Museum gunman, the kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and the Pittsburgh cop-killer who set up an ambush because he was convinced Obama was going to take away his guns.
All the vigilante attacks appear to have been fueled by an almost pathological hatred for the U.S. government -- the same open hatred that right-wing bloggers, AM talk radio hosts, and Fox News' lineup of anti-government prophets have been frantically fueling for the last year, pushing doomsday warnings of America's democratic demise under President Obama.
And the sad the sad truth is we're going to see more like Byron Williams. We're going to see more attempts at vigilante violence during the Age of Obama simply because the right-wing media, lead by Beck, continue to gleefully (albeit irresponsibly) stoke dangerous fires with the kind of relentlessly incendiary rhetoric that has no match in terms of modern day, mainstream use in American politics or media.
Just listen to Glenn Beck:
* Progressives "are sucking the blood out of the republic" and are "gonna start getting more and more violent."
* "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."
* "[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun" and "before I acquiesce and be silent."
* "This game is for keeps"; "[Y]ou can shoot me in the head ... but there will be 10 others that line up."
* "There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America"; "God help us in an emergency."'
And don't forget about the unhinged response when health care reform was passed in March: "Get down on your knees and pray. Pray. It's September 11th all over again, except that we didn't have the collapsing buildings." After financial reform passed last week, Beck told his audience, "Your republic is over."
Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart's website recently tagged Obama as the "suicide-bomber-in-chief," while the conservative Washington Times just last week published an op-ed -- by a former congressman, no less -- asserting the president poses more of a threat to America than al Qaeda.
Note that the radical right's media rhetoric is no longer even political in a partisan sense. Instead, it's purely revolutionary. It isn't, "We think taxes should be lower" or "Obama should be more hawkish overseas." It's, "There's an insidious and deadly plot afoot by Democrats and progressives to strip Americans of their freedom and this country of its greatness." Obama is now the incarnation of evil (the Antichrist?), and his driving hatred for America, as well as for democracy, runs so deep that he ran for president in order to destroy the United States from inside the Oval Office.
Rush Limbaugh: "Our country is being overthrown from within."
And this summer, the latest toxic twist to that line of attack is that Obama is destroying America on purpose in order to exact revenge from white America for the historic sin of slavery. (Think: Black Manchurian Candidate.) The GOP Noise Machine is now mixing a vile cocktail by stirring revolutionary rhetoric with hateful race-baiting.
It's impossible to argue that today's avalanche of insurrectionist rhetoric doesn't have a real world effect. Or that those on the fringes don't find comfort in seeing and hearing their worst fears legitimized on AM radio and Fox News.
The consequences of the doomsday programming seem entirely predictable. As Jeffrey Jones, a professor of media and politics at Old Dominion University, recently explained to the New York Times in regard to Beck's rhetoric, "People hear their values are under attack and they get worried. It becomes an opportunity for them to stand up and do something."
Indeed, the relentless message that right-wing audiences hear is unequivocal and inescapable: Do something! Take action!
And last week, Byron Williams, likely inspired by Glenn Beck's Tides obsession, grabbed his guns and set out to do just that.
Republican Tax Cut Hypocrisy
By Peter Beinart
The Daily Beast -- July26, 2010:
During the Bush years, Republicans mostly insisted, in Dick Cheney’s famous words, that “deficits don’t matter.” Now they say deficits are virtually all that matters. Their rhetoric has shifted radically, but their policy prescriptions haven’t changed one bit. You might think that people terrified of deficits would be concerned about permanently extending tax cuts that will add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Nope. The Republicans were for cutting taxes when they didn’t care about deficits and they are for cutting taxes when they do care about deficits, which is another way of saying that they don’t really care about deficits. They simply care about maintaining the tax cuts for America's wealthiest families.
The Daily Beast -- July26, 2010:
During the Bush years, Republicans mostly insisted, in Dick Cheney’s famous words, that “deficits don’t matter.” Now they say deficits are virtually all that matters. Their rhetoric has shifted radically, but their policy prescriptions haven’t changed one bit. You might think that people terrified of deficits would be concerned about permanently extending tax cuts that will add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Nope. The Republicans were for cutting taxes when they didn’t care about deficits and they are for cutting taxes when they do care about deficits, which is another way of saying that they don’t really care about deficits. They simply care about maintaining the tax cuts for America's wealthiest families.
Monday, July 26, 2010
It's Time To Terminate The Lying Right-Wing Propaganda Machine
From The Washington Post -- July 26, 2010:
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The smearing of Shirley Sherrod ought to be a turning point in American politics. This is not, as the now-trivialized phrase has it, a "teachable moment." It is a time for action.
Enough right-wing propaganda -- Standing up to the Breitbarts
The mainstream media and the Obama administration must stop cowering before a right wing that has persistently forced its propaganda to be accepted as news by convincing traditional journalists that "fairness" requires treating extremist rants as "one side of the story." And there can be no more shilly-shallying about the fact that racial backlash politics is becoming an important component of the campaign against President Obama and against progressives in this year's election.
The administration's response to the doctored video pushed by right-wing hit man Andrew Breitbart was shameful. The obsession with "protecting" the president turned out to be the least protective approach of all.
The Obama team did not question, let alone challenge, the video. Instead, it assumed that whatever narrative Fox News might create mattered more than anything else, including the possible innocence of a human being outside the president's inner circle.
Obama complained on ABC's "Good Morning America" that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack "jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles." But it's his own apparatus that turned "this media culture" into a false god.
Yet the Obama team was reacting to a reality: the bludgeoning of mainstream journalism into looking timorously over its right shoulder and believing that "balance" demands taking seriously whatever sludge the far right is pumping into the political waters.
This goes way back. Al Gore never actually said he "invented the Internet," but you could be forgiven for not knowing this because the mainstream media kept reporting he had.
There were no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills. But this false charge got so much coverage that an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll last August found that 45 percent of Americans thought the reform proposals would likely allow "the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly." That was the summer when support for reform was dropping precipitously. A straight-out lie influenced the course of one of our most important debates.
The traditional media are so petrified of being called "liberal" that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.
Thus did Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander ask this month why the paper had been slow to report on "the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party." Never mind that this is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting. It was aimed at doing what the doctored video Breitbart posted set out to do: convince Americans that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.
And never mind that, to her great credit, Abigail Thernstrom, a conservative George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dismissed the case and those pushing it. "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers," she told Politico's Ben Smith. "This has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." Instead, the media are supposed to take seriously the charges of J. Christian Adams, who served in the Bush Justice Department. He's a Republican activist going back to the Bill Clinton era. His party services included time as a Bush poll watcher in Florida in 2004, when on one occasion he was involved in a controversy over whether a black couple could cast a regular ballot.
Now, Adams is accusing the Obama Justice Department of being "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." This is racially inflammatory, politically motivated nonsense -- and it's nonsense even if Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about it a thousand times a day. When an outlandish charge for which there is no evidence is treated as an on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand issue, the liars win.
The Sherrod case should be the end of the line. If Obama hates the current media climate, he should stop overreacting to it. And the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting on the difference between news and propaganda.
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The smearing of Shirley Sherrod ought to be a turning point in American politics. This is not, as the now-trivialized phrase has it, a "teachable moment." It is a time for action.
Enough right-wing propaganda -- Standing up to the Breitbarts
The mainstream media and the Obama administration must stop cowering before a right wing that has persistently forced its propaganda to be accepted as news by convincing traditional journalists that "fairness" requires treating extremist rants as "one side of the story." And there can be no more shilly-shallying about the fact that racial backlash politics is becoming an important component of the campaign against President Obama and against progressives in this year's election.
The administration's response to the doctored video pushed by right-wing hit man Andrew Breitbart was shameful. The obsession with "protecting" the president turned out to be the least protective approach of all.
The Obama team did not question, let alone challenge, the video. Instead, it assumed that whatever narrative Fox News might create mattered more than anything else, including the possible innocence of a human being outside the president's inner circle.
Obama complained on ABC's "Good Morning America" that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack "jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles." But it's his own apparatus that turned "this media culture" into a false god.
Yet the Obama team was reacting to a reality: the bludgeoning of mainstream journalism into looking timorously over its right shoulder and believing that "balance" demands taking seriously whatever sludge the far right is pumping into the political waters.
This goes way back. Al Gore never actually said he "invented the Internet," but you could be forgiven for not knowing this because the mainstream media kept reporting he had.
There were no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills. But this false charge got so much coverage that an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll last August found that 45 percent of Americans thought the reform proposals would likely allow "the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly." That was the summer when support for reform was dropping precipitously. A straight-out lie influenced the course of one of our most important debates.
The traditional media are so petrified of being called "liberal" that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.
Thus did Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander ask this month why the paper had been slow to report on "the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party." Never mind that this is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting. It was aimed at doing what the doctored video Breitbart posted set out to do: convince Americans that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.
And never mind that, to her great credit, Abigail Thernstrom, a conservative George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dismissed the case and those pushing it. "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers," she told Politico's Ben Smith. "This has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." Instead, the media are supposed to take seriously the charges of J. Christian Adams, who served in the Bush Justice Department. He's a Republican activist going back to the Bill Clinton era. His party services included time as a Bush poll watcher in Florida in 2004, when on one occasion he was involved in a controversy over whether a black couple could cast a regular ballot.
Now, Adams is accusing the Obama Justice Department of being "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." This is racially inflammatory, politically motivated nonsense -- and it's nonsense even if Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about it a thousand times a day. When an outlandish charge for which there is no evidence is treated as an on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand issue, the liars win.
The Sherrod case should be the end of the line. If Obama hates the current media climate, he should stop overreacting to it. And the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting on the difference between news and propaganda.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Right-Wing Video Liar Andrew Breitbart Explodes In Flames
From Media Mattrs for America --- July 22, 2010:
With the implosion of Andrew Breitbart's smear of Shirley Sherrod, many in the media have criticized Breitbart's tactics, called on him to apologize, or pointed out how this episode has depleted any credibility he may have had.
Media: Breitbart "is not a journalist," but a "bull[y]" and "slander[er]" who can't be trusted
Fox's Smith: "[W]e did not and do not trust the source." Discussing coverage of the Sherrod story on the July 21 edition of Fox News' Studio B, host Shepard Smith said that his show declined to report on it initially because "we didn't who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of videos on the site where it was posted. In short, we did not and do not trust the source."
CNN's Cooper: Breitbart actions are "a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." On the July 21 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper said that Breitbart's video clips of Sherrod "were clearly edited to deceive and slander Miss Sherrod," and that Breitbart's efforts to "weasel his way out of taking responsibility for what he did to Miss Sherrod is a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." Cooper continued:
COOPER: "The truth matters." Breitbart posted the clip on Monday on his website. Nearly everything Mr. Breitbart said about Shirley Sherrod was either wrong or somehow slanted to make a larger point about racism and the NAACP. He initially said her speech showed a government official who allowed racist views to influence her work with a white farmer. But we now know it was a speech about her change of heart 24 years ago, when she wasn't even at the USDA. Today, Mr. Breitbart could have just apologized, said he was wrong, but he didn't. Bullies never do, nor do ideologues in our divided country. Instead, he now claims this was never about Miss Sherrod, it was about the NAACP and what he says was their racism based on the audience's reaction to her speech.
Well, the fact is there was no applause when Miss Sherrod was talking about the white farmer. And we'll talk to members of the audience who were there that night about the reaction they saw and heard and that they themselves had. Now, Breitbart also said today that there were cheers over racist comments. Again, the facts do not bear him out. The truth matters. The closest Mr. Breitbart came to an apology today was this comment.
BREITBART [video clip]: I feel bad that they made this about her, and I feel sorry that they made this about her. I'm not sure if that was done because they rushed to judgment or whether they wanted to make about Shirley versus me, because that's what it's become.
COOPER: He goes on to say he's sympathetic to what Miss Sherrod has gone through. Notice the passive voice here, because his words, quote, "they went after her," and not the NAACP. It's like the arsonist saying, "I'm sorry, ma'am, for the water damage done by firefighters." He started the fire. Andrew Breitbart said the clip he first posted proved black racism happening now at the USDA and the NAACP. It didn't. He said it proved racism in the crowd. You can decide for yourself about that. We'll play you the tapes and you'll talk -- you'll hear from audience members. He claims to feel sorry for the victim, but blames others acting on his misleading information for hurting her.
It was a phony story. It isn't the first, and it isn't the first about race. But why let the truth stop you when you're making political points? That's the way a lot of people seem to think these days, on the left and the right.
Politico's Ben Smith: "Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." In a July 22 Politico blog post on the Sherrod story, Ben Smith wrote: "The nice thing about the new-media space is how quickly it self-corrects. Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." Smith added: "And for all the talk of the speed of the Internet, online, like offline, reporting is a long, endless game, and with fewer and fewer trusted institutions to dispense it at will, credibility is a scarce and extremely valuable commodity."
MSNBC's O'Donnell: "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." On the July 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Lawrence O'Donnell said that Breitbart "has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time," adding that the ACORN videos promoted by Breitbart were "manipulated in ways that were grotesquely unfair to the people in those scenes."
PBS ombudsman: Breitbart's treatment of Sherrod shows he "is not a journalist." Commenting on the Sherrod story, PBS ombudsman Alicia Shepard said, "Any journalist would seek comment [from the story's subject before publishing]. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist."
Jonah Goldberg: Sherrod is "owed apolog[y]" from Breitbart. In a July 21 National Review Online blog post, Jonah Goldberg wrote that Sherrod is "owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart." Goldberg added that Breitbart "says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I'd like to think he wouldn't have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable."
John McCormack: Breitbart's clip "was unfair," she "deserves an apology." In a July 21 post, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that "Breitbart's posting of the partial clip, which leaves out crucial information, was unfair to Sherrod," adding that, "Sherrod deserves an apology from Breitbart for posting the edited video."
David Frum: "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote in a July 21 FrumForum blog post that Breitbart will "survive, and undamaged" and that "There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart's role." Frum added that "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth."
SPJ official: Breitbart is "someone with a specific agenda." Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists, said: "Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth. ... Gathering snippets and putting them out there to see what happens seems to be what is happening here. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."
With the implosion of Andrew Breitbart's smear of Shirley Sherrod, many in the media have criticized Breitbart's tactics, called on him to apologize, or pointed out how this episode has depleted any credibility he may have had.
Media: Breitbart "is not a journalist," but a "bull[y]" and "slander[er]" who can't be trusted
Fox's Smith: "[W]e did not and do not trust the source." Discussing coverage of the Sherrod story on the July 21 edition of Fox News' Studio B, host Shepard Smith said that his show declined to report on it initially because "we didn't who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of videos on the site where it was posted. In short, we did not and do not trust the source."
CNN's Cooper: Breitbart actions are "a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." On the July 21 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper said that Breitbart's video clips of Sherrod "were clearly edited to deceive and slander Miss Sherrod," and that Breitbart's efforts to "weasel his way out of taking responsibility for what he did to Miss Sherrod is a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." Cooper continued:
COOPER: "The truth matters." Breitbart posted the clip on Monday on his website. Nearly everything Mr. Breitbart said about Shirley Sherrod was either wrong or somehow slanted to make a larger point about racism and the NAACP. He initially said her speech showed a government official who allowed racist views to influence her work with a white farmer. But we now know it was a speech about her change of heart 24 years ago, when she wasn't even at the USDA. Today, Mr. Breitbart could have just apologized, said he was wrong, but he didn't. Bullies never do, nor do ideologues in our divided country. Instead, he now claims this was never about Miss Sherrod, it was about the NAACP and what he says was their racism based on the audience's reaction to her speech.
Well, the fact is there was no applause when Miss Sherrod was talking about the white farmer. And we'll talk to members of the audience who were there that night about the reaction they saw and heard and that they themselves had. Now, Breitbart also said today that there were cheers over racist comments. Again, the facts do not bear him out. The truth matters. The closest Mr. Breitbart came to an apology today was this comment.
BREITBART [video clip]: I feel bad that they made this about her, and I feel sorry that they made this about her. I'm not sure if that was done because they rushed to judgment or whether they wanted to make about Shirley versus me, because that's what it's become.
COOPER: He goes on to say he's sympathetic to what Miss Sherrod has gone through. Notice the passive voice here, because his words, quote, "they went after her," and not the NAACP. It's like the arsonist saying, "I'm sorry, ma'am, for the water damage done by firefighters." He started the fire. Andrew Breitbart said the clip he first posted proved black racism happening now at the USDA and the NAACP. It didn't. He said it proved racism in the crowd. You can decide for yourself about that. We'll play you the tapes and you'll talk -- you'll hear from audience members. He claims to feel sorry for the victim, but blames others acting on his misleading information for hurting her.
It was a phony story. It isn't the first, and it isn't the first about race. But why let the truth stop you when you're making political points? That's the way a lot of people seem to think these days, on the left and the right.
Politico's Ben Smith: "Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." In a July 22 Politico blog post on the Sherrod story, Ben Smith wrote: "The nice thing about the new-media space is how quickly it self-corrects. Breitbart's sites now have a growing credibility problem." Smith added: "And for all the talk of the speed of the Internet, online, like offline, reporting is a long, endless game, and with fewer and fewer trusted institutions to dispense it at will, credibility is a scarce and extremely valuable commodity."
MSNBC's O'Donnell: "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." On the July 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Lawrence O'Donnell said that Breitbart "has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time," adding that the ACORN videos promoted by Breitbart were "manipulated in ways that were grotesquely unfair to the people in those scenes."
PBS ombudsman: Breitbart's treatment of Sherrod shows he "is not a journalist." Commenting on the Sherrod story, PBS ombudsman Alicia Shepard said, "Any journalist would seek comment [from the story's subject before publishing]. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist."
Jonah Goldberg: Sherrod is "owed apolog[y]" from Breitbart. In a July 21 National Review Online blog post, Jonah Goldberg wrote that Sherrod is "owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart." Goldberg added that Breitbart "says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I'd like to think he wouldn't have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable."
John McCormack: Breitbart's clip "was unfair," she "deserves an apology." In a July 21 post, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that "Breitbart's posting of the partial clip, which leaves out crucial information, was unfair to Sherrod," adding that, "Sherrod deserves an apology from Breitbart for posting the edited video."
David Frum: "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote in a July 21 FrumForum blog post that Breitbart will "survive, and undamaged" and that "There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart's role." Frum added that "Breitbart continues to defend his own 'ends justify the means' bending of the truth."
SPJ official: Breitbart is "someone with a specific agenda." Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists, said: "Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth. ... Gathering snippets and putting them out there to see what happens seems to be what is happening here. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
