"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
| This Week: Media gives short shrift to progressive proposals Media ridicule Edwards for working in business world ... and would have ridiculed him if he didn't |
Several news reports this week about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards illustrate the flawed ways in which media too often treat the champions of progressive economic policies; among them:
-
Media often give short shrift to the actual substance of progressive proposals, focusing instead on their cost.
-
Media portray wealthy candidates who advocate progressive economic proposals as out-of-touch hypocrites. Bizarrely, wealthy candidates who advocate conservative economic policies that would actually enrich themselves often escape similar scrutiny of their personal finances.
The examples below focus on media coverage of Edwards, though it would be a mistake to assume these kinds of flawed reporting are in any way unique to him.
Media gives short shrift to progressive proposals
On Monday, The Washington Post ran a front-page article by Alec MacGillis purportedly about John Edwards' "signature issue" -- poverty. Totaling more than 2,300 words, the Post article noted Edwards' interest in "creating publicly subsidized temporary jobs, expanding the earned-income tax credit and easing college affordability." And it mentioned his proposal to "do[] away with public housing projects and replace[] them with 1 million rental vouchers, to disperse the poor into better neighborhoods and suburbs, closer to good schools and jobs."
But relatively few of the 2,300 words the Post devoted to the article actually explained the logistics of how Edwards' proposals would work, or detailed the arguments advocates of the policies make on their behalf. Instead, much of the article consisted of broad assertions that they won't work. Of Edwards' rental voucher plan, the Post reported, "The idea sounds bold, but it faces a deflating reality." The plan, according to the Post, doesn't merely face obstacles; there aren't indications that it might not work. It faces a deflating reality. Again and again, the Post quoted or referred to scholars, experts, and critics who said Edwards' plans won't work. But the article was noticeably short on quotes from experts who think the plans can work.
Maybe that's because policy experts are unanimous that Edwards' proposals wouldn't work. No, that can't be the case -- the Post was careful to tell us, again and again, that the proposals weren't new. Beginning with the headline "On Poverty, Edwards Faces Old Hurdles: Critics Say He Brings Few Fresh Ideas to Signature Issue" (note that the headline tells us what critics say about his plans, but not what he says, or what the plans are), the article emphasized that Edwards' ideas "have been percolating in the academy for years and are shared by some other candidates." So someone must think they are good ideas.
Indeed, the Post article prompted quick responses from at least two of those people. Jared Bernstein, director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute and former deputy chief economist for the Department of Labor, wrote: "The Washington Post really got it wrong this AM on John Edwards and poverty. ... [T]hese are old ideas, but they work (and Edwards has some new ones too, like the poverty target and some asset-building ideas)."
Greg Anrig, vice president of programs at The Century Foundation, added:
Wonks like Jared and me habitually complain that journalists pay too little attention to policy. But then when we read an ill-informed piece like the one in today's Washington Post dismissing John Edwards' anti-poverty proposals, we get even more infuriated. Maybe the mainstream media should just leave things well enough alone and stay away from wonkery after all.
Anrig then took issue with the Post's comparison of housing vouchers to school vouchers and its conclusions about the efficacy of previous housing voucher programs.
The point isn't that Bernstein and Anrig (and, by extension, Edwards) are right and the experts cited by the Post are wrong. The point is that the Post didn't bother to include the views of experts like Bernstein and Anrig who think Edwards' proposals are good ones. Instead, it just declared that an Edwards idea faces a "deflating reality."
Indeed, a review of every article The Washington Post has printed this year that deals with Edwards' domestic policy proposals in anything approaching a substantive way finds that the paper has yet to print a single example of a single expert saying that a single Edwards proposal would work. The Post has, however, found room for experts who are critical of the proposals. And it has repeatedly noted that the proposals would be paid for with tax increases. On February 12, for example, the Post reported:
This month, Edwards unveiled a health-care proposal that would cost $90 billion to $120 billion annually and be funded mainly by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
That was the entire description of the Edwards health care plan. Notice that the Post article didn't tell readers anything about what the proposal actually is or what it would do -- not a single word. Indeed, the addition of a single word -- "universal" -- before the phrase "health-care proposal" would have been adequate, given that it was only a passing mention. But the Post didn't bother. It did, however, make sure to point out that the plan -- whatever it is -- would cost up to $120 billion a year and would be paid for with tax increases.
Media bizarrely give greater scrutiny to personal finances of wealthy candidates whose policies help the poor than to wealthy candidates whose policies help the rich
But -- strange as it may seem -- coverage of John Edwards' actual policy proposals may reveal less about how the media treat advocates of progressive economic policy than does the media's coverage of Edwards' personal finances.
The Washington Post has published at least three lengthy articles about Edwards' finances this year, and it justified all three by pointing to Edwards' policy positions. (For comparison, keep in mind that in 1999 and 2000, as George W. Bush was running for president, the Post devoted the grand total of 26 words to Bush's sale of Harken stock shortly before the stock tanked. Bush sat on Harken's board of directors and audit committee, and he was told the company faced a "liquidity crisis" shortly before he dumped the stock, according to memos released shortly before the 2000 election and completely ignored by The Washington Post.)
This year's first Post article about Edwards' finances, a January article in which Post reporters John Solomon and Lois Romano explored Edwards' 2006 sale of the Washington home he bought while serving in the Senate, was described by the Post's ombudsman as "a 'gotcha' without the gotcha."
(The article, and defenses of it offered by Solomon and Post editors, contained several other flaws. For example, Solomon suggested during an online discussion with readers that Edwards had violated "federal campaign law" by not disclosing the identity of the buyers of the house. In fact, as Media Matters pointed out to the Post, it appears that there is no such law. Neither Solomon nor the Post has yet to correct the false claim, and Solomon continues to be allowed to write about Edwards.)
Washington Post editor Bill Hamilton reportedly defended his paper's treatment of the bizarre article by telling the Post's ombudsman that the sale justified front-page coverage because it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
Then, on April 23, Solomon teamed up with MacGillis for an article about Edwards' work at a hedge fund called Fortress Investment Group. Once again, the Post's ombudsman was moved to comment on a Solomon article about Edwards' finances, criticizing the tone of the article for implying "that consulting for a hedge fund, whose offshore tax havens he has decried, is incompatible with caring about the less fortunate."
Most recently, on May 11, the Post printed another Solomon and MacGillis article about Edwards' work for Fortress. And, once again, the predicate of the article seemed to be the purported tension between Edwards' personal finances and his populist economic agenda as a presidential candidate.
The Post is by no means the only example of the media promoting the idea of such a tension.
This week on MSNBC's Tucker, for example, host Tucker Carlson declared Edwards' work for the hedge fund to be "corrupt, or at least questionable" and demanded "what the hell is a man of the people doing working for a hedge fund? What's the answer?" CNN's Jack Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer joined in, too, with Cafferty "asking" if viewers "see any contradiction" between Edwards' interest in poverty and his work for a hedge fund -- to which Blitzer replied, "We'll be interested to see next week how much money he actually made. I assume it was a nice little bundle." Blitzer later suggested that Edwards' work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."
And CNN's belligerent "rodeo clown," Glenn Beck, claimed on his May 9 show to be outraged that a rich man would talk about poverty:
BECK: Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says he wants to eradicate poverty, but he didn't mind adding to his multimillions by working for a hedge fund.
[...]
BECK: He says that he believes in two Americas, one for the rich and then the other one for everybody else. How many people in that second America work at hedge funds? How many, John?
Also, do people in that second America live in places like this? I mean, look at it. I love this. He's got a buffer zone between himself and the poor. There's a trailer park across the street. And, of course, everybody in the other America has their very own championship indoor basketball court.
[...]
BECK: By the way, the folks at the hedge fund, they happen to be major contributors to his presidential campaign, and he's not in bed with big business at all.
The thing is, John, I actually agree with you. I think there are two Americas. There's one America for the spoiled, hypocritical, shady, opportunistic fake tan politicians who will do or say anything to get elected while getting a $400 haircut and the America that comprises of the rest of us. I'm just saying.
In case you are wondering: No, Glenn Beck did not tell his dozens of viewers how much money CNN pays him. I'm just saying. Nor, for that matter, did Blitzer tell viewers about the "nice little bundle" he presumably makes.
And on the May 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Cavuto hosted the "Forbes on Fox" crew -- led by Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes Jr., the national co-chair of Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign and the editor-in-chief of the business magazine that bears his family's name. Cavuto, Forbes, and Forbes managing editor Dennis Kneale proceeded to trash Edwards.
Forbes claimed, "Probably the real reason he went to the hedge fund, one, to get money, and two, future target for lawsuits. When one of them goes bust, he can say, I know about these things, collect more money." Later, Forbes wondered, "How many people could he have fed in Africa with those $400 haircuts?"
Got that? Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes Jr. wants you to know that John Edwards is a rich man, not like you and me.
It is doubtful that anyone will accuse Forbes of overspending on his haircuts, but a man whose father had a private airplane called "Capitalist Tool" and collected Fabergé eggs probably shouldn't run around suggesting that the son of a mill worker is out of touch.
Meanwhile, Cavuto explained why it all matters:
CAVUTO: Is there fallback on him that hurts him, the hypocrisy factor?
LEA GOLDMAN ASSOCIATE EDITOR, FORBES: No. I mean, I think the hypocrisy lies in GOP operatives who are quick to point it out. And my answer to that would be, you know, people in glass houses. But I do think you put your finger on something very interesting here. There is.
CAVUTO: But the GOP guys are not pretending to be, you know.
GOLDMAN: There is nothing wrong.
CAVUTO: .great poor advocates, right?
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
This is simply insane.
It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.
An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.
A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.
John Edwards has made his universal health care proposal one of the cornerstones of his campaign -- and said he would pay for it by raising taxes on himself, and very few others. Yet the media present this as some sort of moral deficiency and behave as though Edwards' focus on poverty and health care and economic proposals intended to help the poor and middle class means his personal finances deserve special scrutiny. This seems exactly backward. As we wrote to the Post's ombudsman after Hamilton defended the article on Edwards' house sale, "[I]t would seem that exploring the personal finances of wealthy candidates who support policies that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy would be a better use of the Post's resources."
But the media too often seem to think policies that help the wealthy require no explanation and no exploration of the wealth of the politicians who propose them.
The recent presidential debates moderated by MSNBC provide a telling example. The Democrats, as we noted last week, were asked how they would pay for their health care plans but were not asked what those plans actually were. And they were asked about their personal finances. The Republicans, on the other hand, were asked what taxes they'd like to cut -- but not how they would pay for the cuts. And they were not asked about their personal finances.
In other words, the Republican debate featured a stage full of wealthy candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and Mitt Romney, who hold tax policy positions that benefit the wealthy -- and the (no doubt highly paid, by the way) moderator didn't ask any questions about either the candidates' own wealth or about what they would have to do to the poor and middle class in order to pay for their tax cuts.
The Democratic debate featured a stage full of candidates who, to varying degrees, hold more progressive economic positions and support concepts like universal health care that would benefit the middle class and the poor more than the wealthy -- and the (no doubt highly paid) moderator demanded to know how the candidates would pay for those plans and inquired about their own finances.
It's enough to make you wonder about the princely sums folks like Brian Williams and Chris Matthews and Glenn Beck and Wolf Blitzer and Neil Cavuto are presumably paid by General Electric and Time Warner and News Corp.
An article in the May 14 issue of Fortune certainly seems to suggest that corporations like those should be "afraid" of a candidate like Edwards. Billed as the first in a series "Race for the White House 2008: What business needs to know ... an inside look at the 2008 candidates and what their ideas would mean for business," the Fortune article carries the sub-headline "John Edwards believes a new labor movement is the answer to the country's great divide. Should corporate America be afraid of him?" It concluded:
[S]hould Edwards overcome stiff odds and win the presidency, a new and more hostile day is sure to dawn for Washington's business interests, particularly if Democrats retain control of Congress. Legislation to make union organizing easier would readily pass (already it passed the House this year), as well as other measures to boost the bargaining leverage of organized labor. Universal health care, mostly resisted by the private sector, would top his agenda.
Incredibly, during Beck's man-of-the-people rant, the excitable host suggested that Edwards is "in bed with big business." That's a nonsensical claim, of course, as the Fortune article made clear.
But Beck's bizarre claim fits in quite nicely with other things the media continually tell us about Edwards: He's rich! He gets expensive haircuts! He has a big house! He makes a "nice little bundle" of money! He's a millionaire! He's in bed with big business!
The message is clear: John Edwards isn't like regular folk. It's important to Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes Jr. and (highly paid GE employees) Wolf Blitzer and Glenn Beck that regular folk understand this: John Edwards is different from you. He's rich.
Now why on earth would Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes Jr., a fantastically wealthy man who would presumably pay more in taxes if John Edwards were president than he does now, think it so important to make the poor and middle class understand that Edwards is so very rich, and so very unlike them? Why on earth would it be so important to Glenn Beck for you to understand that you and he live in one America, while John Edwards lives in a mansion? Just a few months ago, Beck dismissed an effort to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade as "nothing but a political issue." What could possibly cause this well-paid television anchor to suddenly pretend he is a friend of the working man in order to engage in class warfare against Edwards?
And make no mistake, that's what Beck and Forbes are doing -- they're asking their viewers to judge John Edwards not on what he believes, or what he'd do as president, or the policies he supports, but on the size of his bank account. These rich men are trying to drive a wedge between the middle class and the poor (an electoral majority, in other words) and a candidate who would raise taxes on the rich in order to help the middle class and the poor.
This is, of course, nothing unique to John Edwards at all. When John Kerry was the Democratic nominee, a bunch of highly paid media figures made sure to tell the people over and over that Kerry was a rich man who gets manicures and windsurfs and just isn't like you and me. (Meanwhile, wealthy conservatives like George W. Bush can count on being portrayed by the media as Regular Guys even as they zoom around their estates on $13,000 worth of bicycles.)
So, if the media are going to suggest that wealthy candidates who propose progressive economic policies are hypocrites and portray them as out of touch with the people who would benefit from their policies, should progressives find messengers of more modest means? Well, in the short term, that seems unlikely to happen -- all of the most likely Democratic presidential nominees are of above-average means. That should come as no surprise; as we constantly hear (usually from the news media), the political process favors candidates who are wealthier than average (the typical schoolteacher isn't as able to campaign for office full time, as is the typical CEO). So the system is slanted in favor of wealthy candidates, and the corporate media portray wealthy candidates who propose middle-class-friendly policies as out-of-touch hypocrites. Intentional or not, the effect is the marginalization of progressive economic policies.
And if, say, the Democratic Party nominated a steelworker as its presidential candidate, and that steelworker ran on a platform of rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in order to pay for universal health insurance, you can be sure media figures like Glenn Beck and Steve Forbes would be quick to denounce the candidate for shameful "class warfare." And it's worth keeping in mind that Bill Clinton did not become wealthy until after leaving office, but his personal finances were subject to greater scrutiny than any politician in American history -- orders of magnitude more scrutiny than his wealthy conservative successor.
Heck of a racket, isn't it?
Media ridicule Edwards for working in business world ... and would have ridiculed him if he didn't
This week brought another example of how the media undermine a progressive economic message at every opportunity. On Tuesday, the Associated Press' Nedra Pickler reported on the AP's interview with Edwards, in which the candidate explained that he took a job with a hedge fund in 2005 in part in order to learn more about financial markets. Pickler reported:
Asked if he had to join a hedge fund to learn about financial markets, Edwards replied, "How else would I have done it?"
He said he considered going to an investment firm such as Goldman Sachs, but Fortress was the most natural fit. Presented with the suggestion that he could have taken a university class instead, he said, "That's true."
Edwards' comments were quickly the subject of media derision. National Journal's Hotline, a political/media insider tip sheet, reported Edwards' "How else would I have done it" comment under the headline "UMMM, I DUNNO, READ A BOOK?" The cable news channels likewise brought forth snide suggestions that Edwards could simply have taken an economics class. Edwards was roundly mocked by the media for trying to gain a greater understanding of world financial markets -- a rather complex topic, though Cafferty, Beck, Tucker & Co. refused to acknowledge as much. To the political media elites, a presidential candidate who demonstrates some intellectual curiosity is someone to be made fun of. This, as Bob Somerby would say, is why we are in Iraq today.
But think what would have happened if, rather than going to work for a hedge fund, John Edwards had taken a class, instead. Imagine the AP had asked Edwards if he had the understanding of world financial markets necessary to be president, and he had replied, "Sure, I just took an economics class last year." It isn't hard to imagine a round of cable news mockery of the ivory tower pinhead who thinks he can understand the real world by reading about it in a book.
Don't take our word for it: During that Cavuto segment, Forbes magazine's Dennis Kneale took a brief break from bashing Edwards to say: "For a Democrat to spend time with a hedge fund would be really good, because you often get the feeling that Democrats have no sense whatsoever of what goes on in Wall Street and in business. And the more we get someone up there who understands a little bit, the better."
Edwards was mocked this week for working at a hedge fund to learn about financial markets. And if he hadn't worked in a hedge fund? The very same people who are mocking him now would dismiss him as someone who has "no sense whatsoever of what goes on in Wall Street and in business." The media are going to undermine him, and others who support similar policies, no matter what. Dennis Kneale (inadvertently) admitted as much.
Giving the people what they want?
Wolf Blitzer would probably say that the media focus on candidates' expensive haircuts and large homes and high salaries because the public is interested in those things. If Blitzer wouldn't say that, others in his profession certainly would.
And, sure, if the media constantly talk about haircuts and hedge fund salaries, people will pay attention. They pay attention to "runaway bride" stories, too -- that doesn't mean those stories are important, or that the public thinks they are. Voters may even come to believe that the size of John Edwards' house tells us something about his plan for universal health care -- not because it is true, but because Blitzer and Beck and The Washington Post keep repeating it so often.
But if any news organization really thinks the American people care (or should care) as much about how John Edwards pays for his haircuts as they care about how he'll help them pay for their health care, they can put their money where their mouth is. Every major national news organization sponsors public opinion polls. And in nearly every one, they ask a question about national priorities. They are perfectly capable of asking Americans to rank the things they think are most important: Iraq, health care, jobs and the economy, taxes, global warming, the environment, terrorism, and John Edwards' haircuts. Unless they do so, they should stop telling us the public cares about trivia like that.
much of what is passed off as learned insider discourse is simply nothing but gossip and shallow stereotypes. the dean scream being the perfect example. fox and the new york post set up the idea, this guy's crazy, and the rest of the media ran with it.
Oh, that... I've heard varoious accounts of the Dean Scream, but I was kind of not paying attention back then. I really started getting interested later during that same campaign (I was, like 15). What really happened with that, anyway?
It was an isolated mic feed. You couldn't tell that the crowd was so loud that in reality you could barely hear the scream over them.
They took it out of context, basically.
Hey guys, this thread is about media hypocrisy. So why are you all hijacking it to talk about personality issues like Glenn Beck?
MM's right here-- this amazing tendency for the media to ridicule rich candidates when they talk about economic issues. Like what exactly is wrong about a limousine liberal-- where's the hypocrisy? It's like that canard about "Marin County Liberals." There's nothing inconsistent about being rich and liberal, if anything, it makes perfect sense-- why can't everyone have money or at least the means to attain things? The rich should know.
In fact, there's something quite noble about a rich person advocating policies that would result in higher tax rates for themselves. But don't wait for the corporate media to mention this little truth.
He was speaking to his supporters during the primaries and said:
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Larkin. We're goin' to South Carolina, and Oklahoma, and Arizona, and North Dakota, and New Mexico. We're goin' to California, and Texas, and New York. And we're goin' to South Dakota, and Oregon, and Washington, and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington DC to take back the White House. <yelling> YEAH! </yelling>
Here's the video.
That was it. He yelled "YEAH!" while trying to pump up the crowd; he had to yell over them on top of that. But the way it was reported on you'd think he was freaking out and screaming at people like a lunatic.
Yet another irony here: I've seen parts of Beck's TV show. He looks positively unhinged.
You should hear his radio show - man he is INSANE is his show. His show is awesome ! Ohhhh Yeahhhhh !
Dude:
Is that an "Edward R. Murrow" awesome or a "Reefer Madness" awesome?
Definitely Reefer Madness .. If you take the politics out of Beck's show I'm sure libs will like it too... listen in and join the other sick twisted freaks listening.
Yes, but the politics are absolutely essential. If he lies and smears, it doesn't matter if he's Mother Theresa the rest of the time!
Lies and smears. Lest we forget that MMFA slammed Becks Global Warming special before it even aired. That is a fact . Go back and check out the internet history if you don't believe me. Get yer head of the sand. Both sides give misinfo all the time. Media matters does it just as much as the next time. Get off your butts and do some research on your own for once.
the "fact" is that mmfa "slammed" beck based on the information contained in a press release that cnn sent out days before the show aired.
I read the press release and I don't know how any reasonable, honest person could conclude that the special would be a smear-fest. MMFA just starts name calling instead of pointing out where they disagree.
you're changing the argument. you said that mmfa slammed beck before the special ever aired. but they did because cnn issued a press release describing the content of the show. you can have your opinion of what a reasonable person would think, but that is different than your attempt to claim that mmfa slammed beck with no clue of what the show would say. you were wrong.
I said they slammed beck before the special aired. That is a true statement. They called it a smear-fest I believe. If they were honest they would have watched it first.
read my post at 802. i repeated what you said almost word for word. but what you were clearly trying to imply at 644, when you first mentioned it, was that mmfa was criticizing beck without first seeing the show. but they already knew, based on the press release. the press release was cnn's own spin on the show, so mmfa took issue with that.
I disagree with your statement "clearly trying to imply". Almost word for word is quite different than word for word. Bashing a special based on a press release before the special airs is dishonest,propaganda and is a well know technique called "poisoning the well".
me at 802: "you said that mmfa slammed beck before the special ever aired." you at 810: "i said they slammed beck before the special aired." could you show me how that is "quite different"? and you talk about what a "reasonable person" would think, i think they would have to conclude from your initial statement that mmfa was completely unaware of what was in the program, but slammed it anyway. i pointed out that they went with what was in the press release by cnn.
SKETTLE:
Your defense of Beck is based on MMFA previewing Beck's "global warming special" before it aired. On its face, this is nonsense, for two reasons.
First, MMFA was not flying blind, they had advanced notice in the form of a PR press release from CNN. Now, it COULD be that the CNN review was so misleading it would cause MMFA to retract their posting ... but guess what? Their "early" review was right on; Beck presented a smear fest.
Second, I can with 100% accuracy predict the result of throwing a watermelon off a four story building. I can report that BEFORE the fruit is tossed, and be certain I'm correct. Why? I know physics, and furthermore, I've witnessed the event on Letterman. The result is always the same, because the essential factors remain constant.
Beck is essentially a propaganda meister for the rightwing, so can be predicted to act in that capacity. He will not disappoint. Further, he has a record of what he considers "arguments" opposing Global Warming (his "special" would of course be a compendium of all those positions and points), and those positions are "on the record".
So, your argument is nonsense. But I will give you some credit: It's probably the best you can do.
The special was the other side of the global warming debate. Beck said many times it was not suppose to be balanced and represented the other side of an "inconvenient truth". If you call that a "smear-fest" then that is your opinion - but to me - that is propaganda and being fundamentally dishonest. Also it is poisoning the well.
By your argument it would be okay to call a Bush speech full of lies before it even aired. White house gives press release that Bush will be speaking about Iraq at 9pm tonight. Before speech MMFA posts on web site. "Bush speech is full of lies". Does that make sense to you ? I mean really, honestly, do you think that is a fair thing to do ?
Get outta town Kettle: Your 2 heroes, Bush and Beck both have reputations that preceed them. The propaganda and lies begin when their lips begin moving! That makes it easy to predict smears, lies and more propaganda. Shame is on you for supporting such people. Together, they have damaged our country and inflickted a major setback to the their own RepubliCant's Party.
I saw the speech live and thought nothing of it. His exuberance actually made me chuckle. I didn't think anything negative about it. The next day I watched in horror as every single talking head played the tape, said Dean was crazy, and said his campaign was over. I wasn't so much upset that a politician was destroyed but THE WAY it was done. I lost a lot of hope for America when that went down. We are still a herd and when the "cool kids" on tv tell us someone is uncool...then we buckle. So he lost the nomination not because of his proposals or some personal scandal....he got whacked by the media.
Dean spoke out against our unholy alliance with Israel. So the Israel Lobby pulled strings and they whacked him politically the first chance they got. That's the power of AIPAC.
bush apologist kathleen parker is still....apologizing. from a recent column on why we went into iraq, and the use of force resolution: "what about believing the international community that hussein had chemical and biological weapons?" this is the same right wing argument that everyone believed what bush believed......except they didn't. the head of british intelligence was saying to a cabinet level meeting that the decision had been made in washington to go to war, but the evidence of wmd was thin. so "the facts were being fixed around the policy". then parker addresses the issue of the u.n. inspectors actually being in iraq and finding nothing: "but saddam was persistently in violation of u.n. resolutions. believing bush seemed a better bet than believing saddam." at that point, no one had to believe a single thing either one said, because the biggest issue for going into iraq was the danger of wmd. so the inspectors had returned, were roaming the country at will, and finding nothing. parker just continues the right wing rewrite of history so beloved by the people like her who helped promote this debacle.
Mr Foser, did you get your title from my question to the wingnut today about Alannis Morisette? It's a very strange coincidence.
Very good article. Thank you for your work.
Let me add my endorsement to the complimentary comment above: very good article indeed, Mr Foster.
I note that you refer to Bob Somerby in the course of elevating our discourse. Highly appropriate.
And what's with doctors treating sick people? A well person treating sick ones? Isn't that hypocrisy?
Right on. But what do those ivory tower acedemic physicians know about medicine anyway? God, they spend like ten years in college.
Get some real world experience. Ya gotta get sick and die before ya can understand the sick and dying!
You lost me peanut. S'ok, its a familiar state.
Don't have much detail on Dean's fate back then. The episode was sold as evidence that variously he was imature,overly emotional, a lightwieght.
I agree with EASY very nice. I think I like Morrisette more up tempo though I can't bring a song to mind.
Hey Glenn, I agree with ya . . .
I think there are two Americas. There's the America where people do not make snap judgements based on sterotypes, innuendos, and half-truths, or get to spew those out on cable television without rebuttal, and where people actually THINK before they speak . . . then there's you.
I'm just sayin.
Once again I reiterate, Thank God for Media Matters. I don't know how we got to whjere we are today, but the unimaginable double standardb liberals are held to while pathologically corrupt republicans get a free pass from the media is undermining our democracy. Only through the admirable efforts of groups like media Matters is this ijustice kept from becoming rampant and unchecked.
Glad MMA is pointing all this out. It's a damned dirty shame that we can't expect anything like fair treatment in the corporate media for any Democratic candidate - especially a true populist who actually has a chance to be elected.
I don't know if there is a solution to this problem. Restoration of the fairness doctrine would be a start but not necessarily a panacea - especially as long as a few corporations own virtually all of our media.
Edwards is the candidate the GOP most fears and is why the media/GOP push these negative attacks without substance. That is what they did to Dean.
Get a grip. There is nothing more the right would like more than to have Edwards be the nominee. Guy freaking works for a hedge fund and claims to be looking out for the poor guy.
Thank you for reinforcing the conservative talking points about Edwards. Just in case anyone else here dosn't feel up to reading the article. Its content answers you and very nicely.
I think most people would agree that Edwards could have learned about the financial markets in a better way. The guy simply has poor judgment. The right is afraid of Hillary, nobody else. Edwards simply gets good ratings because of his lack of judgement.
I disagree. How better to learn about markets? Anybody who says read a book has never worked in the real world.
Unless he did something unethical or illegal when he worked there, it's honest money.
I agree, no better way for Edwards to learn make a lot of new rich friends that can help him out with his campaign. Not like these rich boys are looking for a payoff down the road.
Even assuming that accusation hold water, (which it doesn't), at least Edwards is working for his rich friends, unlike, say Bush, who was born with them. Unless you're supporting Kucinich, Nader or any Green, you're being a frickin' hippocrite.
LOL Great neocon repuglican logic here, folks! Let's summarize: anybody with some wealth who feels empathy for the poor is a hypocrite. The current democratic presidential hopefuls are thus all ruled out. On the other hand, anyone that is truly poor could never possibly become a presidential candidate. They might have the creds but not the necessary wealth to conduct a campaign.Kinda clears the way for the fascists, eh?
Being rich versus working for a hedge fund that makes money off of sub prime lending to the poor are two different things. Don't know how anybody could be a prof that can't even follow basic lgrade 3 logic.
Do you even know what Edwards did in regards to the subprime lending for the poor in New Orleans? Or do you just spit out things you've read without researching what Edwards actually tried to get Fortress to do in regards to Subprime?
Really? If you were heading the RNC you'd be more afriad of a candidate that has the same positive ratings as she has negatives? There's about 5% of the population undecided about Hillary. When it comes to Edwards and Obama they enjoy high likability ratings from Dems, Indies and even Republicans!
Hillary is 10 times better than Edwards. Edwards has a big time image problem. Looks too phony - big mistake with haircut, big mistake putting his career ahead of his wife's cancer, big mistake working for some rich white dudes that prey on the poor.
Congratulations. In one post, you are 0 for 6 on facts, and 6 for 6 on right-wingnut talking points that have no relation to the truth whatsoever.
You have certainly earned your RNC paycheck this week.
But, I understand your logic. You can't understand the GOP unless you are as big and blatant a liar as they are. So you are merely trying to jet On-the-job experience.
If my points are so weak then we'll have to see who wins the democratic nomination. I'm speaking from an outsider, neither right or left, and am sure others withen the democratic party see Edward's having an image problem.
What's with the idea that a wealthy man cannot care about the poor? Geez, you and the media would be bashing FDR right now if he were running. It's total hogwash, Edwards has done great things for the poor, whether it's building two learning labs for kids, or starting a college program in rural NC to help fund kid's college tuition, he's shown that he doesn't just talk the talk but actually makes a difference in people's lives.
Great piece, Jamison. Thanks for writing it - it's filled with so many good points. I blogged about that poverty piece by MacGillis last week as well. I felt that he had framed the issue - whether consciously or not - in a misleading manner.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/5/8/13414/28406
I remember media ridiculing Al Gore for gaining weight, growing a beard after Selection 2000. They'll go for any Dem who might pose a future threat to them.
The average joe in America smells something fishy about Edwards. Anybody who when waste $400 of his own money so foolishy wouldn't think twice about spending the American people's tax dollars foolishy.
You just want to trash Edwards with every imaginable rethug talking point. Get lost, troll.
Edwards could have donated the (hedge fund) money to a charity, Habitat for Humanity comes to mind. Of course this might only come to the mind of someone who is truly an advocate of the other America.
Not only that - the hedge fund he worked for, Fortress capital, was involved in sub prime lending which hurts the poor. You are bang on - if he really cared about he poor he would be working for them. Edward's could learn a thing or two from Jimmy Carter and stop being so phony baloney.
Screw that. Edwards work with the Southern Poverty Law Center is commendable.
Edward's is a populist capitalist and that is no contradiction.
I'm glad that he has worked hard to make something of himself, yet is insightful enough to realize that he didn't do it all by himself. He also knows that he was uplifted every step of the way by the interdependency of people working together. With the aid of our highways, ports, military, banking and legal systems our form of government protects and empowers our ability to prosper.
It's a simple concept until a group of thugs comes along and convinces decent people that success depends on the ability of the individual to horde as much as they can.
In a market economy that aggressively seeks to maximize profits for a proportionally tiny cell of power holders by minimizing the costs of resources (read as people), there will not be fair competition for wealth. Labor will always be in demand and high end jobs will never be plentiful. In the wealthiest society on the planet, it is immoral for those locked out to be without food, necessary medical attention or quality education and subject to the scorn of elitists.
Hard working people deserve equal opportunity to compete and that happens when the risk of failure is diminished. That is to say that if a person experiences a temporary loss of employment resulting in the depletion of savings and elimination of healthcare coverage then that person is effectively locked down. He is unable to compete. If the risk of failure is shared among all of us by pooling together the common wealth for the common good, we can then all share in the rewards of success.
It just doesn't fit your conservative view of how the market should work, that's all, so go ahead and reflexively reject the fact that Edwards is a capitalist and a populist.
Excellent points all - there are a couple more I'd like to add.
The only way for someone of modest means to become president these days is to become a corporate shill. Edwards made the bulk of his money standing up for the little guy against the corporations. I want a guy (gal) who is willing and eager to do that.
If you have a problem with corporate malfeasance, somebody who made a fortune taking them on is exactly who you want to represent you in court. The country at large has just such a problem.
What we don't need is another DLC DINO.
Edwards is a hypocrite that couldn't fill Jimmy Carter's shoes on a good day. Hedge fund, 400 haircut, totally getting humiliated by Cheney in the vp debate. Guy is a plastic, phony baloney, cartoon character.
I watched that VP debate and Cheney didnt come close to humiliating Edwards. You are just being a troll.
Roundhouse - good ideas but wrong country and wrong decade... Try Russia a few decades ago.
No, Skettles, my brother. It's called effective government, mutual responsibility and broad prosperity. Those are traditional American values as well as being ideas of the very here and now.
Yeah, we don't want no populist schmuck that grew up poor and made something of himself. We want someone BORN into wealth, someone that cares, really cares, about Corporate America. Someone that will go to war with any country we don't happen to like. We want someone to protect our right to all the oil our refineries want and then sell for breathtaking profit. All oil, anywhere. We want a man that would be willing to gut our Social Security and Medicare and privatize them for profit. Someone willing to change laws and regulations to make the media more decent, more patriotic, and more able to serve the interests of the state. Someone willing to exploit our commons for corporate profit--our public lands, water, and whatever other resources are left. Yeah, we want someone that will continue the long hard struggle to achieve our destiny: American Fascism.
His last book he wrote, all the proceeds were given to Habitat for Humanity and the International Rescue Commission. Edwards also started a college program in rural NC where he was able to increase the rate of high school seniors going on to college from 25% up to nearly 70%. Edwards also built two learning labs across from the biggest high schools in NC, so kids who couldn't afford tutoring and computers had a a better chance to compete. Edwards also took 700 college kids down to New Orleans to gut homes for a week. The Edwards family has done so much good in NC, whether it was for shelters to schools to churches, I wish people like you would do a little research before you spout off.
You don't honestly expect a response to that, do you?
It just...can't...be...true. Must...ignore...bash...libs.
I knew a college kid that went down to new orleans. You should have saw the working conditions. Houses filled with mold. Basic toxic waste dump. Edward's didn't care about these college kids heath - he just wanted to look good in front of the press. Might as well have sent them to work in a coal mine.
damn that edwards. imagine college kids going to work on houses that had, uh, been underwater for a length of time, and might have had some mold. this ranks right up there with bush lying us into war.
Why don't you send your kid down then.
Well, Edward worked there, and I'm sure he didn't force anyone else to come along.
Toxic waste dump? WTF!
I had a friend go down there to work and he said it was black mold.. when his parents heard about it they were horrified. Black mold is carcinogenic.
Speaking as an average Joe, I have long since started to smell something fishy about Skettle2000.
Excellent analysis, Jamison!! All one need do is google "John Edwards" to see the awful and misleading headlines generated by the corporate media that opposes Edwards' progressive agenda. I try to write reporters and media corporations about their ridiculous articles about Edwards - and really appreciate your noticing the media is slamming him.
"progressive" - the guy will tax us into a 1930's style depression. Get the soup kitchens ready.
Since the Great Depression followed on the heels of the laissez-faire Republican administrations of Harding and Coolidge, which enacted sizable tax cuts, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Depression on repressive taxation.
Who got us out the depression? Who helped get the elderly out of extreme poverty? Even my Republican grandfather who lived through the depression respects FDR, and thinks he was one of the best Presidents of all time. Many proposals Edwards has mirror FDR's new deal. If you hadn't realized it, FDR was a very successful President who led this country into it's golden years. It's kind of crazy that you're posting on here especially since you obviously know nothing about history.
Your bridge is calling troll
So, if a (comparatively) rich man cannot presume to advocate for the less well off, how is it that an administration made up of draft dodgers (ok, deferments) and AWOLs (spin it how you will) presume to press a war?
Awesome point!
See "Operation Chickenhawk"
Hey I was all for Ross Perot. So it's not about being rich - but it is about how you earn your money. ( And also how you spend it - 400 haircut tells me Edwards won't think too hard about spending my hard earned money ). The man on the street smells something fishy about Edwards.
Mr. Foser touched on the real problem here, and that is the media.
Cable news, network news, and all of their hypocritical and cannibalistic pundits, news anchors, know-nothings, and wannabes set the agenda in this country for people who cannot or care nothing about thinking for themselves on this and other matters of concern. This is the REAL danger.
The media is the single most negative influence on society today. It is virtually free to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants, and accepts no responsibility for its actions. Forget about the FCC, what a joke. There are no agencies to oversee ethics and truth in reporting, there are no governing boards made up of ombudsmen to keep the media in check. It's just balls to the wall; everything is fair game.
As Mr. Foser pointed out, Blitzer would probably say "we report the news that the public wants to know about". Like Blitzer himself, this is a disingenuous statement at beast. There are no real journalists anymore, just highly paid opportunists who are selling the company line to the public at large. They can be summed up in a famous line spoken by Marlon Brando's character Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now: "they are errand boys sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill".
Part of the definition for the word apocalypse is: "the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil and raises the righteous to life in a messianic kingdom". An apropos fate for such poisonous snakes.
What about the public schoos and acadamia being left leaning ? What percentage of public school teachers are liberal ? What about students being forced to watch "An Inconvient Truth" ? I take a master's class at night part time at one of the schools in my area - and walk down the hall ways and the profs have so much anti-bush hatred posted on their doors. What about all of that. You can't go trying to fix just one side you must look at the big picture.
Skettle 101
What about the public schoos
Yeah, what about those schoos? I went to schools, myself. That's why I can write.
and acadamia
That's 'academia,' genius. Don't try to wrestle with such big words.
being left leaning ?
What about it? Are you saying that's a fact? If so, where's your proof? (By the way, there shouldn't be a space before the question mark.)
What percentage of public chool
My goodness, how may incorrect ways of typing 'school' are you going to treat us to?
teachers are liberal ?
An interesting question, which you don't try to answer. And why? Because you have a presumption, but no evidence.
What about students being forced to watch "An Inconvient Truth" ?
Never heard of it. There is, on the other hand, an Academy Award-winning documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth." As to the notion that students are being "forced" to watch it, I'd like to see some evidence, rather than more of your hearsay.
I take a master's class at night
In English, I hope. A logic class would also help.
part time at one of the schools
Well done, you got it right this time!
in my area - and walk down the hall ways
That's 'hallways.'
and the profs have so much anti-bush hatred posted on their doors.
Well, considering that even mild disagreement with Bush (yes, it should be capitalized) is seen by the wingnuts as "hatred," it doesn't really say much. What have you seen, a poster that says "No Blank Check for Endless War," or something like that?
What about all of that.
Two things: (1) Professors tend to be very well-informed, bright people, and the vast majority of well-informed, bright people, along with 70% of the rest of the country, disapprove of Bush. No surprise there. (2) What happened to your question mark?
You can't go trying to fix just one side you must look at the big picture.
And has your incredible vision enabled you to actually deal with what you're responding to? Nope. The issue was the media, not teachers. Please remember to take a little more time, use logical arguments, and make use of the Preview button when you post again. You might even earn a little respect.
From my point of view - if you are going to look at bias in govt funded organizations, or govt controlled airways, or govt controlled anything where speech reaches the public you should look at it in total. If you don't then it appears that you are playing politics. It appears to me that you are going after media to get a political advantage, because it is right leaning, not because you are taking some moral high ground. If you were truly moral, rather than just trying to get a political advantage, you would go after bias in all govt institutions that reach the public in large numbers.
Seriously, *I* just couldn't find it within myself to address Skettle's deficiencies. Better man than I, indeed; regardless of your gender. Not only did you shoulder that onerous burden, but remained civil throughout (although somewhat caustic at times, always civil). Perhaps you serve as an exemplar of what religion could provide to the political discourse, in contrast to the unscrupulous belligerence that currently pervades so much of faith's involvement.
I can take the spelling and grammar mistakes, or legitimate rebuttals. But when it comes to being called a fascist, racist then it becomes a bit much. I have also been told my hero is Bush which is another thing I don't understand, given that I have never said much of anything good about Bush.
Here is the thing, right:
Media Matters' liberal bias is so evident it doesn't even PRETEND to be a watchdog. And I say this as a flaming liberal. You peope ANNOY me.
1) Fortress is a hedge fund MANAGEMENT COMPANY not a hedge fund. If you're going to nit-pick the MSM for such petty things, you yourself have GOT to be spot on.
2) John Edwards' hypocrisy is completely relevant and four cheers to the MSM for calling him on it. What they did in 2000 for GWB is irrelevant.
If you are capable of reading, you might try reading Foser's article to which you are "replying". He thoroughly debunks the myths you are trying to push.
"flaming liberal"
is that a liberal about to crash and burn?
Explain to me just how MMFA is more biased than any other organization and how that makes their reports unaccurate. You have to prove both.
Nice try, troll. You're probably as much a "flaming liberal" as Michael Savage is.
And since when did MMFA say they aren't liberal? Oh that's right, they didn't. And how can something not be a watchdog group because they watch specifically for conservative misinformation? The fact they are liberal doesn't invalidate their points.
And to your "points":
1) Edwards worked as a consultant for the Fortress Investment Group; they are far-and-away most well known for their hedge funds. The idea that simply referring to him working for a "hedge fund" is somehow inaccurate when, besides Foser, Edwards and pretty much every right-wing journalist and pundit attacking him called it a "hedge fund" is ridiculous. And I have never seen MMFA "nit-pick" anyone for something "petty" like that, and something tells me neither have you.
2) The entire article debunks the idea that he is a hypocrite. You didn't read it. The MSM pretending Shrub was a regular joe while blasting every rich Democrat is pretty relevant to this. And just to "nit-pick," "four cheers?"
What they did in 2000 (and '04) is highly relevant.
You sound like a social democrat in 1932: "We can make use of this Hitler. What do you meanr 'he's dangerous'?--that he tried to take over the government a few years back is irrelevant.
100 percent correct. Edwards could steal from his grandmother and as long as he said .. "Golly, I'm just giving the money to the poor", people on this board would support him.
You spew your brainwashed talking points well grasshopper. Hannity would be proud.
For all the personal attacks that public figures endure, you'd expect that the critics must themselves be spotless.
I'd much rather spend time examining what the candidates propose to do and whether or not they could get their proposals enacted. I like the proposals John Edwards has put forth. He is a thoughtful and articulate person.
I'm just curious what sort of candidate these people have in mind to tackle the poverty issue. A person who was born rich would be dismissed off the bat as knowing nothing of poverty (though I suppose he could "read a book.") Assuming it was even possible for a poor man to become a candidate, well, he wouldn't do either, because he hasn't been able to lift himself from poverty; he wouldn't be able to do it for anyone else either. All of which leads to the obvious point that the Glen Becks and Tucker Carlsons of the world have no interest whatsoever in helping the poor and are apparently doing all they can to make sure nobody else does, either. It's a shame the majority of the masses can't see through their nonsense; we'd all be better off if they did.
That last sentence gets my vote for understatement of the week.
- The Republicans, on the other hand, were asked what taxes they'd like to cut -- but not how they would pay for the cuts. - Foser
So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year.
Foser completely misses the point...while relying on the old democrat playbook that the economy is a zero sum game...and that tax cuts reduce revenue.
It's a spending problem...not a revenue problem.
So it's okay for the Republicans to choose which taxes to lose but we are to ignore that last year, when they set the budget, the deficit was $248.2 billion and that was the lowest it had been in 4 years? And while revenues are up this year the deficit is still projected at being $150 to $200 billion for 2007. It seems to me you deliberately ignored the deficit to make your point.
You say spending is the problem but hasn't it been the Republicans spending like mad while arguing for those tax cuts? And what is that "spending problem" we've had for the past 4 years now? That's right, Iraq. If you want to talk about the "democrat playbook" let's talk about the "republican playbook," cut spending to anything and everything except defense which can get all the money that was going to go to those other things anyway, thus maintaining if not increasing spending ultimately.
Sounds like the page from the Republican playbook that Ronald Reagan wrote, I believe he entitled it, "Strategic Deficits."
If the republicans don't spend it the democrats will. I am in favor of some type of hard legal cap on govt spending, obviously with some form of exceptions.
My believe is the govt can do just fine on the amount of money they currently get. How many do nothing beuracrats and leeches do we currently have on the govt payroll ? It is easier for the govt to take more of your money than it is for them to clean up the massive beurcracy that currently exists.
I think Al Gore talked about reinventing the civil service at one point - he gets good points on that one.
Tax cuts DO reduce revenue. The Reagan cuts dropped revenue by almost 10% in the first two years. The economy grows as more people are added to it but tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. Here is the guy who headed Bush's counsel of economic advisors admitting as much
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400806.html
choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."
How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.
You guys just keep repeating this canard that tax cuts increase revenue like its religious doctrine. Its baloney. The top rate was about 80% in the 50's and it was a golden age for our economy. economics is pretty complicated for simple statements so I am not saying no tax cut can ever increase revenues in any circumstance. However it is absolutly ludicrous to just assert that cutting taxes increases revenue. It has been shown to work otherwise several times.
Actually, the top marginal rates in the late 50's, early 60's was 90% (until JFK pushed through a reduction). Then. of course, came the Great Society programs of the mid 60's that were supposed to eliminate poverty, etc (How did LBJ fund those? Partially by rolling SSI funds into the General Budget figures to make the debt look smaller that it actually was). Now, as Baby Boomers retire, we are reaping the rewards of unfunded liabilities going back a generation or so. If reinstalling Clinton's tax rates are good, wouldn't increasing them by another 50% be great?? It is a spending problem and has been a spending problem (with a few exceptions) since the mid 1800's.
I totally agree. It is a spending problem. Govt has plenty of money to eliminate poverty, for education, even for defense. But it is wasted on cronies, bureaucracy, kickbacks, looking after friends that helped you win the election, etc. Unless these problems are fixed the American people should stand up and say I'm not paying 1 dollar more in taxes.
So who is advocating a 50% tax hike? No one? Your strawman is meaningless then. As I pointed out, the religious devotion the rightwing repeats the mantra that cutting taxes raises revenues is not supported by the available evidence.
Hey, Solon, I'm glad I found you here. I've been reading this thread and it's just ridiculus. It's silly. And, on behalf of the wingnuts (myself included) that can actually think and debate intelligently on this site (of course that's a matter of opinion. Chill, I'm trying to be peaceful here), I would like to apologize for Skettle2000. I don't know if he's some sophomore Poli-Sci major or what, but he's just a plain idiot. My advise is to NOT reply to him, and he'll go away.
Now I don't regularly agree with you (in fact, I've said some pretty mean things about you, even when you weren't around. Sorry), but you are dead on when you say that our government has a spending problem. I think that even two people as different as us can agree that this would be a much better country (red or blue, doesn't matter) if the government would stop the spending spree. And I know the war is a big part of it, I'm not here now to have that arguement. I'm actually kind of tired of the heat-butting and name-calling.
But this spending thing is huge. And it's not just Bush. It's not just Clinton's fault. It's not old Bush, or Reagan or Carter. It's every one of these politicians (especially Congress) for the past 50 years or so developing their procedures, systematically figuring out how far they can reach into our pockets without us lopping their hands off. It's a learned behavior. It's a skill. And the tricks of their trade have been handed down for decades. Sure, they'll fight each other like cats and dogs, but ulimately they treat the taxpayers exactly the same way. They shake us down for our money until we start to complain, then they create subterfuge in order to hide how much they're taking.
They absolutely have the American public by the collective gonads, and most of us don't even realize it. I've heard alot of people say, "That politics stuff is to hard to understand, so I don't pay attention." And the sad thing is, you know that politicians just love these people. We are nothing more than a huge bag of money to them, and they reach right in without fear of any recourse whatsoever. Sure the Dems point out the Reps pork spending, and the Reps point out the Dems spending. But do WE ever do anything about it? Not really.
I think the biggest travesty concerning elected officials today is that we think of them as "leaders" when we should be treating them as what they actually are---service providers. Think about this: What would you do to your stock broker if he treated you in the same manner that a politician does?
One of the most brilliant political ideas I have heard in years it to establish a "10th amendment review committee" made up of not only federal, but state-level officials that would look at every power the Federal government has amassed for itself over the years and, once and for all, determine if the federal government should have that power. If not, it is handed back to the states, or to the people. How would you view something like that?
Well we have a spending problem sounds good. I certainly wouldnt disagree, unfortunatly its like saying I support mothers. It has emotional appeal, who would disagree but little substance, its jingoistic unless you SPECIFICALLY talk about what you would cut. That is where we most likely would disagree. Politics and policy is about priorities. Government has done good things with our money in the past. Rural electrification is a good example. The thing is taxes are the price we pay for a society and as with most things you most often get what you pay for. There are a lot of spending areas I would cut, corporate welfare, like the subsidies that we give drug comapanies by doing their research through the NIH. I am not philosophically against it but unless we put strings on what they can charge on medicines our tax dollars have created its just corporate wellfare. The low interest loans we give foriegn countries to buy our goods a direct corporate subsidy. I want to invest in America and Americans, in our health care crisis. Its not so much that money is wasted, though it is, I just think the priorities of spending dont match the American peoples priorities and I think if you look at the PIPA polls over the last few decades that is born out. As for our rude encounters dont take them seriously, I certainly dont. I try to make points about namecalling with my rude and sometimes vicious attacks but dont really mean any harm. Take me with a grain of salt I am mostly amusing myself when not givinga reasoned response and have very little emotional investment in what I say or what is said to me.
I've been call on this site idiot, racist, and even worse personal attacks. I myself take the high road and am quite cordial.
Media Matters should contrast this with the fawning, kiss-his-butt coverage Bush received for his bogus, and probably unconstitutional, faith based approach to poverty I recall how everyone thought it was so wonderful and special that there was this supposed conservative approach to social issues.
Hey Foser, if you guys ever get around to writing a couple of books I'll be first in line to buy them. Seriously, you could even put together a varied collection of your weekly columns to start. You do a really great job of analyzing the media's effect on a multitide of issues. You could make a few bucks in the process, and maybe even get out from under Soros' thumb. (ha, ha)
Great idea, man. I would like to second that motion.
More fear mongering from the right. No fear from the rich like having to pay their fair share.
If I were a Republican running for re-election to congress and wanted to distance myself from President Bush, I'd call for impeachment. Does anyone recall Ct. Sen. Wicker from the Watergate era?
Perhaps a war hero from Nebraska.
Ok, I was nice to Solon, so now I'm going to have to take out my frustrations on you?
Let's say a person earns a $1,000,000.00 a year salary. What do YOU think his "fair share" should be?