Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Who's Killing the Press? The 2017 White House Correspondents Dinner

Occupy Portland Launch Rally
October 6, 2011
http://www.aflitt.com/occupyportlandoctober2011
© A. F. Litt 2011, All Rights Reserved


Time to start posting again...  Probably not too often, but I feel like my long hiatus on this blog is somewhat coming to an end...

An interesting White House Correspondents Dinner this year, reflecting the current state of the American press corps.  Here is an incomplete rundown of my takeaways:

First, the President not attending this year's event, to me, makes this one not to overlook, but one to pay closer attention to. The whys of this idea are complex and would take a whole essay to explain in detail.  Not that speakers have pulled punches with the President in the room in the past, but that is a small piece of it.  However, without the distraction of the President being present, it felt like this year's event was a bit more self-reflexive, a bit more introspective, focusing a little more on the successes and failures of the press itself over recent past.

The other day, on CNN, a talking head was saying that President Trump, through the campaign, the transition, and the first 100 days, did more damage to the press than anyone or anything else in modern history.

This is just simply not true.

The damage has come from the 24 hour networks trying to maintain ratings through the endless, Sisyphusian loops of the modern 24 hour news cycle.  It comes from the blending of news reporting and infotainment that is confusing to many viewers.  It has come from the decline of print journalism and a whole segment of the press that is understaffed and panicked by their own quest for survival...

Back in the day of the newspaper, we had separate sections for news and opinion and clear editorial rules for how to write and present those very different articles.  However, these days, on the news networks, on the internet, the line is blurred, and in the case of shows like Fox and Friends, the line is almost entirely eliminated.

So, instead of the viewer being presented with news and, perhaps, some unbiased analysis, they are presented only with the facts that present the host's views, and then are spoon fed what these facts "mean" through the narrow lens of the host's political agenda.

This doesn't mean that we should ignore the facts, but we need to be very careful about and aware of who is presenting these facts to us when watching, or reading, anything.  We need to be sure that we are getting all the facts, and we need to make up our own minds and not fall into an intellectually lazy zone where we let the writer, the presenter, or the talking heads (more on that next), tell us what we should feel about them.

We need to make our own interpretations.  We need to make up our own minds and make our own decisions.

And perhaps even worse than those blurred lines between news and opinion reporting are those talking heads inevitably brought in to tell us what the facts are supposed to mean.

In the not too distant past, the standard format on most television news broadcasts was to present the story, just the facts, and then to bring in a subject matter expert to add context and analysis to the story just presented.  This expert would not be representing a political viewpoint, but in depth knowledge and experience on the issue being discussed.

However, what we see these days, hitting its low point with CNN's coverage of the 2016 election, is bringing in a paid right wing pundit and a paid left wing pundit to argue the politics and views of their side in response to the facts.  This is done in the name of being "fair," but it is not.

Some stories are good and bad, some stories are pretty clear cut.  If Senator Jim Jim is caught robbing from old ladies and killing their kittens, we do not need a talking head from the other party arguing that he was justified in his actions or that the actions, in the light of clear evidence to the contrary,  never even actually happened and are, instead, falsely, just a creation of biased media.

Such tactics are not representative of a "fair and balanced" approach to reporting (sure, a Fox slogan, but one I am applying to everyone), but instead these tactics are actually unbalancing the true weight of the facts themselves.

Instead of news, what we get are arguments.  Crossfire, years back on CNN, was a pioneer of this format and could be entertaining and even, slightly, informative in a one hour a day dose.  Sure, let's hear what both sides have to say on the issues of the day.  Why not?  But not all the time on all of everything.  There is a time and place for that, and always, every time, through most of the hours of the day, is not that time or place.

So, instead of spending time with a subject matter expert who can help to explain what the possible legal ramification of Senator Jim Jim's actions are, what the fallout politically for the parties are, we hear biased spin doctors on the left and right trying to tilt Jim Jim's horrific actions to their side's own political benefit.

No new insight is gained.  Our time is wasted.  Or we become numb, and our own biases (we all have them) let the spin seep in and we adopt, knowingly or unknowingly, even with some resistance, the stance of the spin doctor we sympathize with the most.  Our views on the issue are being manipulated and defined by our political camaraderie with the talking head who speaks the most towards our own political biases...

These sins, two out of many, are the reason for the crisis in American journalism these days.

President Trump did not create this, he did not strike the first blow, he is merely capitalizing on the media's self inflicted wounds.  Wounds they've been inflicting on themselves for a long time, well before the President ever jumped into the Birther debate, let alone before he announced his candidacy for President...

The press itself has opened up the gaps in trust that the President is charging through.  They let the roof get leaky, and then too many underneath started blaming the rain for making them wet.

At this year's dinner, Hasan Minhaj called the media out on many of these issues.  There were many uncomfortable chuckles, too polite applause points, and awkward silences as he spoke.  He did not eviscerate them, but rather put a calm and loving hand on their shoulder and said, "Really, you know this isn't all good; you can do better."

He called them out in a fairly soft, but still firm, manner and asked them to rise up, to fix the leaky roof, to take responsibility for the health of their own industry, and to help the rest of America to navigate and survive the reality of the President Trump Administration.


While Minhaj was both sharp and entertaining, the speeches by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward that preceded Minhaj were intriguing, fascinating, and chillingly relevant considering the heavy duty scandals already looming over this embryonic administration. Check out the link to the full event at the bottom of this post to view what these two titans had to share with the crowd this year.




To be fair, I've seen change since Inauguration Day.  I've seen a certain sense of sobering in the press and media.  The Trump Presidency is not a result of the failure of the media, far from it, there are many factors that led to his Electoral College victory.  Yet, the press' failings did play a role here, creating an environment where Candidate Trump's weaknesses became strengths and muddying the waters enough to make it just that more difficult for voters to make a well informed choice with their ballots.  I believe that this has led to some self examination that is creating a sense of greater responsibility to their consumers.

The role of the press is not about sales or clicks or ratings, it is about being the Fourth Estate, the final check in our government's system of checks and balances, and the press is our safety valve when the three branches of our government fail to hold each other to account.  Watergate is, of course, the obvious example, but this role has been acknowledged by everyone since the writing of our Constitution, and this role is established and verified by that very document.

The first 100 days of this presidency have brought the traditional print and broadcast news organizations to a stark junction where they find their own legitimacy, and even basic survival, in doubt and jeopardy.  There is a lot at stake for our nation right now.  Still, I am encouraged by the slow turn back towards traditional journalistic principles that this ship seems to be making.  I do see some slow change.  I think the last year has spooked them, and they are slowly, cautiously, trying to correct their course.  But is it enough?  And will this last?

They've seen the iceberg.  But is the course correction too little, too late, to avoid sinking the whole ship?



No President

To be fair, I fully understand why President Trump chose to be the first president since Nixon to completely shun the dinner...  This was a no win situation for him.

If the president made jokes, he'd be torn to shreds...  They'd sound too much like his bizarre tweets and statements over the last 100 days.  Where is the line between reality and satire?  How do you roast anyone or anything when your "serious" communications already sound like a stranger than true parody sketch on a late night comedy show?

But that is just the political consideration...  Ego was a factor, I am sure, as well.  This is not a guy who currently has a thick enough skin to sit through an evening like this at this point in his life.  Sure, he was the target of a Comedy Central roast late in his old career, on the cusp of his new career as a politician, but that was a different time in his life.  It was a time of letting go of what came before while not being invested deeply yet in the new life he has now.

To be honest, I have not seen the Comedy Central roast.  Maybe he didn't take it well?  I don't know.

But something seems to have happened since then, an internal change seems to have occurred, and he can no longer seem to accept any perceived challenges to his "winning," either from facts, commentary, or satire.

Sitting there looking uncomfortable, or even upset, all night would have been damaging.  His own speech at the end of the night, juxtaposed with those images, likely would have come across as too angry or too bitter, even if he was trying to be a good sport about everything.

The margin of political victory for him on this night would have been tiny and difficult to achieve.  The White House, politically, made a sensible choice in not taking the risk.




Not (the full) Truth!
Mrs. Clinton did accept the primary blame for her 2016 election loss in today's interview, while clearly pointing these factors out as elements that weighted the scales against her, especially, in a crippling way, during the final days of the campaign.  Whatever the truth is on the election, why she lost or why President Trump won, this is a misleading headline regarding her actual comments today.  She did infer that she would have won the election if it was held on October 27, 2016.

Links

The Washington Post:

A different sort of White House correspondents’ dinner

C-SPAN:  

The whole damn show (Starts with the Video mentioned in the Rolling Stone article below)

Rolling Stone:  

The Most Cringeworthy Moment From the White House Correspondents' Dinner
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 18, 2012

2012, Debate # 2 analysis & how late night comedy writers will select our next President

While Tuesday’s debate was definitely a win for Obama, it left me with some very ambivalent feelings afterwards…  The following is compiled from my Facebook posts that evening:

Yes, he's not my guy, and I wasn't rooting for him, but from as an unbiased as a perspective as I can manage, I just need to say this...

I think Mitt Romney's debate tonight was the worst performance I've ever seen by a presidential candidate from either party ever. (Well, since the first one I watched in 1984, at least).

Yeah, the post debate “Who Won Tonight?” polls are close, because about 95% of those polled will say their guy won, no matter what. And don't give me that undecided voter crap on a spot poll taken in the five minutes before the candidates have even left the stage.

But this was a bad night for Romney. It may take a few days for that really to emerge. But it was bad. Bad Bad Bad Bad. Bad.

Bad candidate. Bad. "Was he just trying to help Paul Ryan feel better?" bad.

Going to the mat, standing by his misquote of the President, and then getting fact checked on the spot by the moderator, basically at his own request? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!

This man wants to be the leader of the free world? Oh hells no.

See, this pisses me off. Yeah, I want Romney and Ryan to lose, but this shit is just bad for America, PERIOD.

I WANT two qualified candidates. I want a tough, close election because there is a real choice, not because of blind party loyalties. I want to be able to take both the GOP and the Democrats seriously.  While I rarely vote Republican, I want the option!

I take Obama seriously. Everyone else can pretty much piss off and die at this point. American politics? Dead.

Yeah, I was typing with fists on Tuesday… 

As for the Town Hall format, the moderators (though a big thumbs up to Crowley, it’s not like she busted in unsolicited), and the debate coverage in general…  In response to this post, “BTW, am I the only person that thinks regular Americans seem to ask better questions than paid reporters?—Dave” on The Pragmatic Progressive Page, I spat out, “Of course they do. Journalism is dead.”

Not a good campaign cycle for America.

Considering Romney’s train wreck of a performance on Tuesday, he is lucky that the takeaway is the “binders full of women” comment.  This will not help him, but there were far worse gaffes in the evening than this one.

So, Obama supporters, yes it is funny, but shut up about it.  People forgive legitimate jumbles of words in high stress situations.  Instead, pound on him for the real mistakes. 

Women in the workplace?  Sure, and we’ll even try to get them home in time to cook dinner.

Getting fact checked by the moderator, at his own request, and losing a point where he actually has some valid concerns and questions about a serious national security failure?

Saying that gun violence would be reduced if only there were more two parent families?

This is what noise should be made about, not the “Binders Full of Women.”  These jokes are funny, but they actually help Romney more than hurting him by distracting from his real gaffes on Tuesday.  Gaffes that might actually work towards changing public perceptions about the GOP contender.

This first clip illustrates a couple points I've been making in several of my posts.

First, people are going to think their candidate won no matter what happened in the debate.

Second, those on the fence are going to be swayed not by what happened during the 90 minute debate, but by the sound bites they hear on a two minute news segment, or by the jokes they hear on late night shows, Facebook, and other sources.

These people are shown supporting their candidate, declaring it a win for their guy, spouting pre-debate buzz about debate expectations, without realizing that the debate has not even happened yet. 

And people like this are going to be the one who decide this election, not the well informed voters who, on a regular basis, actually follow the issues being discussed in the debates. 

This election will be won by whomever attracts the least attention from the comics.  In elections that are not close, the jokes probably serve more as a barometer of public opinion, but in close elections, or even elections at decisive turning points, these jokes can actually shape public perceptions enough that they can change the outcome of an election.

A lot of words have been written over the years about how so many in the younger generations get most of their news from The Daily Show, Colbert, and other such sources, but this is not really a new phenomenon.

More than being the source for news, late night comics have provided the analysis of events that really tend to define how many Americans perceive their candidates.  Dukakis was slayed by these folks, losing his lead in 1988 after a series of gaffes that gave the comedy writers a bushel of full of material.  That election ended up not being as close as the last few, but…

Gore and the lock box in 2000?  Probably worth at least a few hundred votes in Florida.

Kerry / Bush in 2004?  Both were hammered about equally as hard.  Well, in these cases, we see that the tie goes to the incumbent.   

In 2008, one of the most masterful pieces of the Obama campaign was staying out of the late night headlights.  McCain, wandering around the town hall debate, Palin’s, well, everything?  These jokes sealed the deal for Obama.  The piling on as the outcome of the election looked more and more certain through the month of October?

This year, we see this playing out again.  Obama broadens his lead after a series of humorous gaffes by Romney, the race tightens after Obama is hammered in late night after the first debate, and now?  Well, over the next few nights, we’ll see, though I think we know where this will go.

So, the winner of the debates is pretty much decided by headlines and short sound bites on the evening and morning news shows.  The fallout, the shifts of momentum in close races, especially after conventions and debates?  Decided by the late night comics.

A lot of people are saying that the damage done by the first debate to the Obama campaign may have been irreversible.  Not necessarily ensuring a Romney victory, but ensuring a very close and tense election night.  And it might have been the deciding factor if Romney had been able to settle down and keep a low profile for the next two debates and not make any more bad mistakes.  Staying on script, never freewheeling it in public, let alone in front of cameras…

He didn’t do that. 

Earlier, I mentioned The Daily Show, and they have always (deservedly, my bias) gone harder after the GOP than the Dems, but this show does not have the influence of Saturday Night Live, Leno, and Letterman because its viewers tend to be progressive anyway.  Same for Fox News.  Whatever these two outlets are saying about the candidates may influence the

passion of the GOP or Democratic base, but they don’t have much of an influence on the almost completely apolitical swing voters who decide close elections.

I was hoping to post up the Leno and Letterman monologues from last night, but I couldn’t find them anywhere yet.  Apparently, CBS and NBC like to not post them online anywhere until they are stale and irrelevant. I haven’t seen them yet, myself. 

So here’s Conan instead.

 

Related Posts

from tag Romney
from tag Obama
(more..)

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections

This morning on OPB, the local NPR radio station, they had a brief clip from the president of the Portland State University Republicans...

Her main argument for the GOP and Romney, her main attraction to the GOP, was her perception that the Republicans’ primary ethic was success through hard work.  She said that this fit well with her family's worldview, since her parents were immigrants who achieved "the American Dream." She also felt the Republicans were more pro-American, more patriotic.

Occupy Portland: F29 - Occupy The Corporations. Portland, Oregon. February 29, 2012. 12:21 PM Of course, “arbeit macht frei” sounds familiar...  Where have I heard that before?

So, through all of the noise and clatter, what she is taking from the campaigns so far is that the idea of working really hard to achieve success is a Republican ethic.  I suppose, for the Democrats’ ethics, she probably shares Romney’s stated view on 47% of America, though, to be fair, she did not mention the Democrats at all.

This is how the GOP gets so many to vote for them, to vote against their best interests.  The message is to work hard, keep doing what you are doing, and we’ll get the government to quit supporting those who aren’t working as hard and to remove those who are standing in your way on the path to success.

2011-10-06 Occupy Portland Of course, in reality, most GOP policies do nothing to help these folks at all.  If anything, especially with the current platform, it harms them and takes away many of their protections.  And, likely, a Romney victory would result in these folks paying higher taxes, one way or the other, and students, perhaps even the one interviewed on the radio this morning, no longer being able to attend college due to higher costs and reduced financial aid availability.

I would spend the morning collecting stats and historical trends from Republican Congresses and Presidencies, but lets face it…  For voters like this young woman, those stats mean nothing.  They had her at "work brings freedom."

To be fair, this sounded like the ideas of someone very young who has not really had any real world experience.  I don’t know, but it’s what she sounded like to me. 

Now, I have no problem with people who are Republicans because they feel that the specific policies and platforms, economic plans, etc. are right for America.  I usually disagree with them, but they have their vote and I have mine.

What bothered me here was that she did not talk about economic plans or specific ideas on solving real issues our country was facing, she spoke only of vague generalities and meaningless, emotional slogans.  And, to her, the GOP is the party supporting the American Dream.

Of course, this young woman’s vote was probably never up for grabs this year.  Her reasons for being a Republican may be silly, but she is one and it is unlikely that she ever considered voting for Obama this year.  Party faithful tend to look for reasons to continue to support their candidate, even through disaterous campaigns, rather than looking for reasons to switch their vote to the other guy.

But this clip still tells me a lot about how this election is going, and how recent elections have gone down.

To me, this is a really clear example of how the two parties different ideas distill down to many people, dripping down through incompetent or biased media sources, through tea party / extremist sloganeering, to arrive, stripped of any meaning or sense, to wash and water the preconceived biases of the ordinary voter who does not spend hours, not even every day, but every election, picking their party and candidate…

Occupy Portland: F29 - Occupy The Corporations. Portland, Oregon. February 29, 2012. 12:34 PMWhat dripped down to this student was that the GOP is the party protecting the American dream.  Details on how they are doing this?  Not necessary.  She trusts the signs.

This election will be decided by 5% of the voters in five or so states.  If they have not made up their mind yet, they are probably relying on semi-hysterical and mostly meaningless sound bites on the evening and morning news shows, vague notions bantered about by late night comics, Facebook graphics, and water cooler talking points for their information. 

What is distilling down to these people is important.  It will decide this election.  It is easy to laugh and dismiss people who sound like this student sounded this morning, and that is a huge mistake because whichever candidate does the best job at targeting voters like her, albeit ones who have not made up their minds, will win every time.

Historically, the Republicans have the process down.  The Democrats are slowly catching up, but still tend to fall into the trap that they can win on the intelligence and strength of their ideas and that sound bites are petty and worthless.  No, they can’t win this way. 

It is why so many Democrats were baffled by Romney’s “defeat” of Obama in the first debate.  Obama brought the facts, Romney brought the persona, and Romney “won.”

As much as I hate to say it, to win, the Democrats must become masters of the very broken, very evil, sound bite and slogan driven PR machine that removes all thought and depth from their arguments and promises everyone success and happiness and ponies as a reward for voting Democrat. 

Unfortunately, for the last twelve years or more, the Democrats seem incapable of actually winning elections.  The only times they actually win, including the mid-term congressional elections as well as the presidency, is when the GOP screws up so bad that the voters come crawling back to give the Dems one more chance. 

Before the first debate, the widening lead in the polls was not due to the strength of the Democrats’ arguments, but due to the ineptness of the Romney campaign.  He seems silly, I am not voting for him!  Tax codes?  Health care?  Foreign policy?  Nope.  Mitt looked silly.  Now that Mitt doesn’t seem so silly, these voters are torn again.

This election will be decided by Leno and Letterman and the like, not even by Fox News or The Daily Show, whose viewers were never really in play to start with.  The candidate who wins will be the one who provides the least fuel for the jokes, not by the campaign that offers the best, or, at least, the most coherent, ideas for the future of our country.  It is sad and it is why, I can’t see for a long time, calling this blog anything but Democracy In Distress.

Related Posts

from tag Party
from tag Romney
(more..)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

How Mitt Romney will win tonight’s debate

2012-10-03 1.

Looking at the build up for tonight’s debate, well… Hee! I can smell the desperation from here...

However, I beg everyone, remember 2000 & 2004. Gore & Kerry were supposed to destroy W. as bad as Obama is expected to destroy Romney tonight... And those first debates were spun into "wins" for Bush, pretty much because he held his own and didn't start crying like a two year old.

Expectations are so low for Romney tonight that it will be called a win for him if he doesn't embarrass himself, and since most Americans will only check out the talking head soundbites, not the debates themselves, they will believe it.

Yes, it is looking good for Obama right now, but this is not over yet.  And, chances are, unless Romney completely blows it, most Americans will hear that Romney wins tonight.  That is my prediction.  Will it be enough to even him up in the polls?  Who know…

Just remember, listening to the media (not just Fox), and it sounded like there was a real battle for the GOP nomination this year.  When you look at the real numbers and how they were accumulated, it was an pretty clean and decisive cake walk to the nomination for Romney.  Less of a battle than Clinton / Obama in 2008, and even less than McCain / Huckabee in 2008 and Bush / McCain in 2000.

As was just being discussed on NPR, in 2000, Gore went into the first debate with Bush holding a five point lead.  After the debate, he was behind five points, and everyone expected Gore to destroy Bush in the debates before they actually happened.  Sounds like a familiar scenario, right?

Of course, I do not think Obama will be sighing and checking his watch… 

More so than what happens on stage tonight, what happens next really depends on media spin.  Not the partisan talking heads, but the producers, writers, editors, reporters and directors out there.

The media wants a story to tell.  If the election is pretty much settled a month out, that leaves four weeks of dead air time…  Which they will fill by trying to create the feeling that the race is much closer than it really is.  The problem?  People will start believing it, and everyone loves a come from behind underdog, right?

This is a process that will probably start tonight.

This thing is not over and Romney still has a real chance of taking office in January.

Why debate is crucial for Obama, too - CNN.com:

It would appear, then, that Obama can simply go for caution, choosing a clinch in the center of the ring over hard punches, and walking away with a tie. But on closer examination, Obama ought to be pressing for a victory, too.

In some polls over recent weeks, especially from key states, the president has now opened up a second possible path to re-election. For a long time, his campaign advisers have assumed that he would win but that his margin of victory would be narrow -- less than three points. Even now, his advisers -- even as they are quietly confident about the ultimate outcome -- are running scared, assuming the race will likely close significantly in the final weeks.

Debate coach: Obama, Romney are top performers - CNN.com:

If you've been hearing the spin, the only reason to watch the inevitable train wreck of the upcoming debates would be to see just how inept both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are at debating. And that spin is self-criticism. Their own campaigns would have us believe that these two candidates can't piece together a complete sentence between the two of them.

But I'm here to tell you: It ain't so.

These are two of the better presidential debaters we've witnessed, and I'm anticipating excellent debates. If you haven't watched Obama, I can assure you that he more than held his own four years ago in the debates against John McCain.

And if you haven't seen Romney, then take my word for it. He debated poorly in only two of his (almost 20) debates this past year. His game is consistently solid.

THE RACE: Few knockout punches occur in debates - Yahoo! News:

But unlike election results or prize fights, there are seldom knock-out punches or clear-cut winners in debates. Sometimes it takes days for a consensus to emerge — if ever.

Richard Nixon's haggard appearance vs. John F. Kennedy's vigor is widely cited as contributing to a Kennedy victory in the first 1960 debate. But polls showed that was true mostly for those who watched it on TV, while those listening to the radio generally picked Nixon as victor. And Nixon did better in three later debates.

Few gaffes are as striking as President Gerald Ford's 1976 erroneous claim that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. But Ford had held his own in an earlier debate, and many other factors contributed to his defeat by Jimmy Carter.

Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004 were generally deemed superior technical debaters — but both lost to a George Bush.

10 debate moments that mattered - CNN.com:

Goodwin describes 10 key presidential and vice presidential debates that made a difference:

Related Posts

from tag Romney
from tag Obama
(more..)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The 8 Worst Examples of Fox News Election Journalism Malpractice (In Just 8 Weeks) | Alternet

The 8 Worst Examples of Fox News Election Journalism Malpractice (In Just 8 Weeks) | Alternet: "Since the majority of rational news consumers will never see much of what Fox works so hard to invent, we have complied a list of some of the most dishonest moments so far in the 2012 election cycle. (Note: in order to pare this list down to a manageable length, it has been limited to just the past eight weeks. There's only so much bandwidth on the Internet.)" 'via Blog this'
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina

Pride Parade. Seattle, Washington. c. 1997.

I think the President does a nice job of explaining his evolving position on marriage equality in the following email:

Friend --

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,
Barack

Unfortunately, President Obama’s shift on this issue, while important, does little to change actual policy.  In fact, while this counts as one in the win column, in North Carolina, there is not only a set back on marriage equality, but yet another example of poorly written legislation coming out of the far right wing of the GOP. 

It’s one thing to write laws that I disagree with, entirely another issue altogether to put poorly written laws in the books…   One is politics, the other is incompetence.

4 Worst Media Misrepresentations of North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment One | Media | AlterNet:

UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Maxine Eichner has spoken extensively to delineate the definite consequences of the Amendment as well as the possible consequences. She says the Amendment definitely bars the state from passing same-sex marriage or civil union legislation, which extends rights to same-sex couples, in the future. Furthermore, it bans the State from passing domestic partnership laws, which extend legal rights to unmarried couples, no matter their sexual orientation. Not only that, but it invalidates “existing partnership benefits by municipalities for all unmarried couples,” no matter their sexual orientation. In other words, as Protect All NC Families, the coalition organization set up to fight Amendment One, explains on its website, the Amendment eliminates “health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits."

Of course, there is always the possibility that this new amendment does exactly what its authors want, limiting the legal rights of people who are immorally shacking up regardless of gender… 

Considering the recent birth control debates, would this really be an unexpected development at this point?








video platform
video management
video solutions
video player
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lord of the Rings - The Right Side of History
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama's Gay Blasphemy
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Endless Suffrage 2012 - States' Rights Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama vs. North Carolina on Gay Marriage
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

 

Related Posts

from tag Win
from tag Incompetency
from tag Rights
(more..)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 23, 2012

The war on women & Santorum’s choice

As for this last image, on Facebook I wrote:

There is truth here. Not that these men are necessarily misogynists, they probably are not. But their campaign strategies are geared towards solidifying support of demographic groups who will actually vote for them, and in the general election the majority of women will vote Dem pretty much no matter what these fools do, so pissing them off really doesn't change the game for them at all.

Appealing to Non-College Educated White Males, however, the GOP's most dominant demographic, is a huge part of their game plan. The more heavily they dominate this segment of society, the more they can alienate these fellows from the democrats and Obama, the greater their chances of victory in the primaries and in November.

Being worried about what women think is a losing game for them, there is no reason for them to care what they think at all.

Since then, Romney has wrapped up the nomination.  This came a little earlier than I thought it would.  I actually suspected that Santorum would not give up until the convention, allowing the GOP as much of a chance as possible to try to get out of nominating Romney.

However, I think Santorum had a real moment of clarity leading to his withdrawal from the race.  Brace yourselves, I am actually going to say something nice about this fellow.

I do suspect that staying in the race as long as humanly possible was Santorum's plan.  I think, on the Friday before he dropped out, that he had every intention of still being in the race a week later.

I believe there were two factors that made him change his mind.

One, of course, was the fact that he was apparently looking at an embarrassing loss in his home state of Pennsylvania. 

Santorum as the GOP’s next frontrunner

At this point in his campaign, politically, I think he should have been looking more towards the future than any real chance of being sworn in as president in 2013.  Of course, he still had a long shot at widening the cracks between Romney and the, quite frankly, bigoted far right wing of the Republican Party to create some convention drama and an even longer shot at still derailing Romney’s nomination, either becoming the nominee himself or creating the possibility of another candidate stepping into the role.

But the odds of creating any of these scenarios were shrinking fast.  Getting shellacked in Pennsylvania would have lowered the odds even further.

And I don’t think his eye should even have been on the nomination this year, at least for the last couple months.  He should have been looking at 2016 or 2020, depending on Romney’s fate this fall.  For Santorum, staying in the race as long as possible should have been all about positioning himself for the future.  The longer he hung in there, collecting headlines if not delegates, he was building a solid foundation for a future run at the Presidency.

The GOP has a track record of elevating those who make a good showing one year to frontrunner status the next.  Santorum’s campaign, for the last month or two, could have been following a John McCain strategy. 

In 2000, McCain stayed in the race far past the point where Bush had locked up the nomination and was rewarded with front runner status for almost the entire duration of the 2008 Republican primaries, fairly easily wrapping up the nomination his next time out.  Of course, he managed to stay in the race that year without becoming a joke. 

In 2008, the McCain role was played not by Romney, but by Huckabee.  However, since Huckabee decided, early, to sit this one out, Romney slid into the 2nd place role this year and, like McCain in 2008, has now completed a fairly easy primary season and secured the nomination without too much fuss or muss.

Let’s face it, the GOP primaries this year were not a close thing.  Romney owned them.  Most of the noise about any real competition this year was just that, noise from the media trying to keep a blowout interesting through the end of the fourth quarter.  This is not to say that what competition there was wasn’t interesting, it was, and it revealed a lot about the nature of the GOP and its different demographic elements, but the race itself was not a close one at all.

If Santorum really wants to be president, he has a real chance at becoming the GOP front runner the next time around.  Like McCain and Romney, he needs to spend the next four to eight years quietly organizing and he can, pretty much, claim early frontrunner status the next time around.  Especially if the far right continues to dominate the party like it has, which is almost inevitable if Obama wins re-election.

However, this future front runner status depends on Santorum maintaining his credibility this year.

By pulling out when he did, the former Senator is ending on a relative high note, while he is still seen as a strong candidate.  The story, however, could have changed if he stayed in the race and suffered an embarrassing loss in his home state. 

So far, the humiliating 17 point loss of his Senate seat has remained out of the national press, for the most part, and has been forgotten by almost everyone. 

After another brutal home state loss, I suspect that his past political failures would enter into the national conversation and the story would change from his relatively successful presidential campaign this year to his repeated failings as a candidate for political office.

In other words, the press about his campaign would turn from being mostly positive to mostly negative.  By getting out now, as I said, he ends this year’s run on a high note and 2012 becomes a bright spot on his resume, not a hurdle to be overcome in the future.

Santorum’s Priorities

All of these considerations set aside, I still suspect that Santorum was in the race for the long run this year, until the weekend before he dropped out. 

He was still seen as being a factor in this year’s nomination process, his campaign was still receiving decent press, though it was starting to turn a little negative as Pennsylvania approached, and, let’s face it, a part of me really wonders if Candidate Santorum is really savvy enough to consider the arguments I made above in defense of his campaign to this point and how it poses him for a future run for the nomination.

If there was ever a candidate to stay in the race far past the point of respectability, ruining his reputation and future in a blind run towards an unreachable finish line, it would seem to be the former Senator.  This would be a move right out of his playbook, blind self-immolation.

Though I am sure his campaign advisors saw what I saw for the last couple of months and have been talking to the former Senator quite a bit about how long to stay in and when to drop out.  In fact, I would strongly suspect that these voices in his ears were whispering that, in order to position himself properly for the next campaign, that he should drop out before the Pennsylvania contest.

And I am pretty sure that Santorum was ignoring these voices until his daughter was hospitalized the weekend before he dropped out.

That weekend, I bet, Rick got in touch not only with some big doses of reality but that he also took a long look at his priorities in life. 

Whether or not he really believed that he still had a shot at the Presidency this year, I do not know, but even a rock would be having doubts by that point.  But I think he was still having fun.  I think, whether or not he believed he still had a chance, that he was enjoying the spotlight that was shining not only on himself but also on his (crazy, crazy, terrible, awful, horrible) political beliefs.

And, of course, inspiring national conversations about beliefs that are important to oneself would be a difficult role for anyone to walk away from.  I suspect that as long as he was inspiring these conversations that Santorum wasn’t going anywhere, even if staying in the race eventually cost him his own political future. 

Until his daughter’s hospitalization, I don’t think Santorum would have dropped out of the race until his campaign faded from the spotlight, until it resembled something like Newt Gingrich’s, and then I think he’d probably stay in the race until the money completely ran out or even longer, until, like Newt, he could sit there with his toe still in the pond while doing very little active campaigning.

But that takes a lot of time and effort and I am sure that even Santorum was beginning to see that his 2012 run was over.  It is one thing to be taking time away from one’s family and an ill child when one has a real shot at the White House, it is quite another to take that time for what amounts to little more than political noisemaking and rabblerousing.

I think Santorum made a very healthy choice here for himself and his family.  I applaud him for it.  Sure, I wanted the man out of the race.  Amusing (and infuriating) as he was, any chance he has at ever reaching the Oval Office needs to be shut down as soon as possible.  But I also am glad to see him (or anyone) putting his family first like this.

Yet my applause are a little bitter sweet here.  By making a great choice as a human and a father he has also, accidently, made a great political move.  I would be very surprised if we are not dealing with frontrunner Santorum the next time out, and that is not a good thing for America at all.

I see his exit as coming about through the following process… 

My advisors keep telling me that it is getting close to the time where I should walk away, but I am not there yet myself.  Wait, I need to be with my family now.  Oh, okay guys, let’s schedule a press event.  Why are my advisors so happy?  I though we were admitting defeat and going home?  Why are they so happy about losing?  Why are they chanting “2016… 2016…  2016…”?  Boy, that volunteer has a cute butt, I wonder if he works out?  Holy cow, I’ve got to go pray now! 

Okay.  I tried to keep those sorts of jabs out of this post.  But I couldn’t resist just one.

See you the next time around, Rick.  Though I can’t say that I look forward to it.

Facebook, Snip.it, & Pinterest

Yeah, it’s been way too long since I posted here.  I’ve been throwing a lot of links up on Facebook, Snip.it, and Pinterest, but I have not had any time at all to write for the last several weeks.

Follow me on those sites for more content between my posts, and from the links I share, you can get a pretty good idea of what is distressing our democracy on an almost daily basis.

Related Posts

from tag Romney
from tag Newt
from tag Republican
from tag Santorum
from tag Health
from tag Rights
(more..)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Occupy Portland: F29 – Occupy the Corporations Grab-Bag

I have many pictures and videos that are currently loading up on my computers for editing.  I will be posting these ASAP, not letting them sit forever like the Eviction and N17 photos and videos, which I also want to be done with by the end of the weekend.

Yesterday I had to bug out early, around 2 PM, to take my son to an appointment.  Before I left, I saw no incidents with the police, though there might have been a little incident down around the federal courthouse that I did not witness directly, being distracted by taking pictures of the umbrella in the antlers…

Anyway…

Occupy protesters take to the streets, march against corporations | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon:

Wednesday’s protest was called “F29,” as in February 29. Demonstrations were held in Portland and across the country to draw attention to a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC.

The Occupy movement’s biggest issue is with large corporations that they say use ALEC to craft legislation that favorable to them. The proposed laws are then forwarded to state lawmakers where they’re introduced in individual states.

Occupiers say that gives the appearance of popular support across the nation for any one particular issue. The protesters argue that’s essentially rigging the nation’s political system.

“Our goal today is to draw attention to the companies that are involved in ALEC and to expose that the biggest companies in the world are writing as much as 10 percent of the legislation that passes through our House here in Oregon,” said Brian Sloan with Occupy Portland.

Those behind the Occupy movement say ALEC allows corporations to influence laws without being held directly accountable for what those laws do.

 

7 arrests in Occupy Portland F29 protest | kgw.com Portland:

Portland Police called the demonstrations well facilitated, generally peaceful and largely non-contentious. Lt. Robert King says F29 organizers designated a police liaison which made for reduced tension and more effective communication between police and protesters.

In all, seven people were arrested throughout the day. At the Wells Fargo Tower, three people were charged with criminal trespassing after they chained themselves to property with bike locks.

Two were arrested along SW Broadway for vandalism after jumping on a Verizon van. At a Bank of America at NE 12th and Broadway, two people were arrested for criminal trespassing after they refused to leave.

 

While I was there, the only riot police I saw were staying about six blocks away from the march. As the march moved through the city, they would move as well, but keeping their distance unless legitimately needed. This sort of staging plan seemed to work well from what I saw, since closer proximity always seems to provoke people rather than deter people.

This article refers to an event late Tuesday evening or early Wednesday morning…

Anarchists, Occupy split over bank vandalism | kgw.com Portland:

On their twitter account, Occupy fired back Wednesday morning at the vandals. "To the rock tossers: Thank you for not hiding behind Occupy and forcing peaceful marchers to take a beating for you this time."
Earlier this month, Occupy Portland activists called out anarchists who resorted to vandalism during a march on police use of force. Some marchers turned on each other as windows in cars and a restaurant were broken.

An anti-bank march last November called N17 turned ugly, with activists accusing the police of excessive force and police saying they were trying to keep roadways clear. The conflict received national attention because of a dramatic use of pepper spray by police. An image from that protest captured by an Oregonian photographer received worldwide distribution through social networks.

'F29' protesters take aim at corporations during march - KPTV - FOX 12:

The group spoke out specifically against the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which is comprised of America's largest corporations like ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo and McDonalds.

When the demonstrators approached a building housing one of those corporations, they chanted and waved signs at those inside.

…

A group appearing to be separate from Occupy Portland vandalized two banks and a Starbucks shop overnight, and then emailed a statement to media in which they wished the Occupy movement good luck with its protest.

 

Just for giggles, I checked Fox News.com…  There is nothing on the landing page about any Occupation activities anywhere yesterday.   

I suppose if they mentioned the F29 actions, they would have to mention ALEC, which would probably anger their dark overlords.  (The local Portland affiliate is much less evil.)

Fox did have room on their home page for this today: “Escorts claim Utah law makes acting sexy illegal.”  Insert your own joke about Fox News on-camera “talent.”  Nothing from Fox on the politics page, either, though they did have room, again, for the article I mentioned above. 

To be fair, I could not find mention of any actions on CNN.com or MSNBC, either.  I guess the other actions around the country were not as big of a deal as was hoped.

If the main goal of the protest was 1) to call attention to ALEC, and 2) to remind people that people are still pissed off and that the Occupation is still active, then I think the day, in Portland, at least, was a success.

The next several videos are from someone who seems to be looking for dirt on the occupation.  I do respect the fact that he actually went down and took a look at what was going on, but I am not sure that these videos actually accomplish his goals.

Uh oh, dude put on a bandana.  The barbarians are at the gates! 

I disagree with calling the cops assholes.  I, however, agree that the horses and cars are owned by the people.  Using the banners to provide a safe barrier between the horses and the crowd was a well-planned part of the action and a great idea.

This appears to show the tensest part of the day.  It was after I left, so I am not sure.  This is nothing compared to N17, and it looks like the police handled themselves well.  (No pepper spray!)

With this next video, I saw this and I am actually on this video in the background (black hood with camera, 1:02), taking a picture from the other side of the horses. There was no incident here.

Ah, shucks.  Vandalism!

Hee, hee…  I love this next one.  The only thing I don’t like is that there were as many photographers in there as there were protesters!  McDonalds…  Not worth risking jail for? 

This person finally caught some real dirt on this last clip.

Yes, the fellow with the umbrella is a moron and you have called him out. My only disappointment with the protesters here is that no one pulled him aside and shut him down. The whole point of actions like this is to bring media attention to issues such as ALEC, and this sort of behavior does nothing to support the cause.

I've seen some idiots get really out of line, much worse than this, with the Fox 12 crews, which is very lame. Fox 12 is very balanced compared to the cable network and many other local Fox affiliates around the country.

I've also witnessed many of its staff expressing a lot of sympathy and support, off camera, for the Occupy movement, at least earlier on. This includes on-air personalities.

If these were the worst incidents of the day, then it was a very good day indeed.  Good behavior marks all around, to both the protesters and the police.

My take is that the mood was very different than the November actions.  It felt a lot more like the opening rally and march on October 6.  Obviously the eviction was going to be a tense and violent time, but I think the feelings from that night and day spilled over to taint the actions of N17, both with the police and with the protesters, more than they would have if the two events had a little more space between them.

 

Related Posts

from tag Crisis
from tag Economy
from tag Fox
from tag Inequality
from tag Deregulation
from tag Corruption
from tag Corporate
from tag Class
(more..)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)