TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | media

Mitt Slams Newt with Ronald Reagan



er… I mean Romney’s Super PAC… er… Rather, the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney that has absolutely no contact with the candidate whatsoever is slamming Newt with Ronald Reagan.

Nate Silver reveals why. In the debates, Newt continually tries to associate himself with the Gipper:

Over the course of the 17 debates that he has participated in during this cycle, Mr. Gingrich has used the term “Reagan” 55 times, according to debate transcripts. By comparison, the nine other Republican candidates who have participated in the debates mentioned Reagan just 51 times combined. (Rick Santorum is a distant second to Mr. Gingrich with 14 mentions.)

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

File This Under Predictable

It comes from Fox and nobody should be surprised.

It won’t help Mitt Romney win the nomination, because he’s having so much trouble explaining himself I’m not sure anything can at this point, but it does give you an idea of the demagoguing on Romney’s wealth.

It also is illustrative for why many Americans are sick of both political parties and their unhinged partisan warfare.

WHO’S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%

I wrote the headline first yesterday: How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity? So, needless to say I knew this was coming.

No one can argue that the Swiss bank, Cayman account bingo slick Mitt is playing looks bad. That Newt Gingrich, a rich fat cat lobbyist and access peddler, is teeing off on it is as expected as the Democratic response.

Let’s just not pretend Democrats don’t play the same game.

Mitt Romney is simply the general election whipping boy on wealth in an era of Occupy.

But considering he’s one man among many, including Obama’s chief financial architects, this is quickly and predictably turning into an unseemly spectacle brimming with hubris and hypocrisy.

It’s just one reason the Occupy movement doesn’t want to identify with either Democrats or Republicans.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Of Smoke-filled Rooms and Mitch Daniels

Mitch Daniels, a favorite of Bill Kistrol, the man who brought the GOP Sarah Palin, gave the Republican response last night. For conservatives, it was the perfect setting, given in perfect pitch, and included the perfect message, delivered by someone who didn’t come off crazy. It’s likely why waking up today after Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, some Republicans have political morning sickness.

Newt Gingrich has the political touch Mitt Romney lacks, but he delivers it in a way that makes him look maniacal. He also has a taste for the jugular, which is why he won in South Carolina. But Newt’s style is also what has gotten him into trouble a million times before, which is why there are stories and rumors flying about nervousness inside GOP central, which is more a state of mind these days than an actual address.

An aide to Charlie Crist has gone over to Mitt Romney. It took Newt Gingrich about 2 seconds to use it against him. From Politico:

“We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign manager,” Gingrich said Tuesday at the Tick Tock Restaurant in St. Petersburg. “I thought that told you everything you need to know about this primary.”

“As governor of Massachusetts [Romney] was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-tax increase and pro- gun control,” he said. “Now that makes you a moderate in Massachusetts but it makes you pretty liberal in a Republican primary. That’s probably why he hired Charlie Crist’s staff.”

Newt Gingrich seems to be the only one who doesn’t know he’s not welcome at the top of the GOP ticket. The message is being delivered, though whether he hears it or not is another story.

It’s starting over at Townhall and it’s serious. Because when you tell Andrea Mitchell stuff like this it’s going to hit the airwaves.

ANDREA MITCHELL: “I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney can not win here in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against.”

But all this talk of smoke-filled rooms and Mitch Daniels misses one thing: the Tea Party. Are you telling me that Republicans don’t think right wing conservatives won’t pitch a fit if the Republican establishment decides to scuttle Newt’s rise to possible nominee? They really think in the Tea Party era they can get away with this?

I’d like to see that play.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Newt’s Mistake: Pivoting to General Election Mode

There was no sports arena atmosphere. No applause. None of which benefited Newt Gingrich. …or Brian Williams, who made The Elite Media and the Professional Left antsy.

The video above was released as the debate began, driving home Mitt’s theme of the night.

“In the 15 years after he left the speakership, the speaker has been working as an influence peddler in Washington,” Romney said. “In those 15 years, I helped run the Olympics, helped start a … turnaround in Massachusetts.” – Burns & Haberman

Newt Gingrich decided to take Romney’s assault. He evidently thinks it’s presidential. But it’s political suicide against a man who’s loaded with cash and a campaign team that stretches to June, neither of which Gingrich has going for himself.

Someone told Newt Gingrich that to win the general election he needs people beyond right-wingers, so he didn’t respond all night. But you don’t let your opponent, someone you just put on his heels, kick your character to the curb.

“After 4 years he had to resign in disgrace” was said twice by Romney in response to the first question, then he called him an “influence peddler,” both having the virtue of being true.

“I didn’t have an office on K-street,” with follow-ups from Cayman cash Mitt that landed.

Memo to Newt: it’s not over yet and you need money beyond your Super PAC mom and dad, but you won’t get it if you’re not attacking, the tactic that got you into the lead and where your ego decided you’ve already won.

The “self-deportation” line from Romney brought out snickering. But as BuzzFeed tweeted, it’s a real thing, it just has “few takers.”

Something for Gingrich to ponder before Thursday’s CNN debate: when you’re not attacking, you’re losing, because without it people wonder why they like you.

Next event, Mitt Romney’s taxes tomorrow, but it’s also the State of the Union. No one will be distracted.

Maybe if Newt Gingrich actually wins this thing we’ll get to see the Republican hard right up close, allowing it to spin itself into oblivion and out of our national fabric.

It’s the up side of Newt.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Romney’s Assault



Romney Campaign on Newt: “We Want to Know What Nancy Pelosi Knows” – Dave Weigel

Mitt Romney needs to win Florida and he knows it.

Sure he can keep going if he doesn’t and he may eventually prevail without it. However, it will not be easy or pretty and letting Newt win in Florida will unleash a tsunami of flop sweat from Republicans about whether Romney is worth holding up.

So, he’s finally hitting Newt where he’s most vulnerable, with women. Gingrich has never had a strong following and today Mitt Romney’s campaign is targeting them with a radio ad. You can listen here.

Two debates this week before Florida votes next Tuesday; one tonight with Brian Williams, with the other one on Thursday via CNN.

Romney will have to go on the attack. As you can see from the “take a hike” quote below , Romney’s never been particularly adept at the attack line. It doesn’t come naturally and he rarely gives it with a smile.

At one point during his outdoor rally at a building supply company, Romney was interrupted by protesters chanting, “We are the people.” He quickly dismissed them. “No, actually, these are the people,” Romney shouted back. “These are the people; you’re the interrupters. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the right to speech. And you believe in interrupting. Take a hike.” – Los Angeles Times

As for Newt Gingrich, the man’s toxicity personified, but his political ear has perfect pitch, as you might have seen yesterday on Meet the Press. Without a hint of shame, Gingrich presented himself as the anti-Washington outsider, even throwing a nod to the Ron Paul crowd on the Fed, while delivering a populist, the Republican and elite elite don’t like me, so I’m your guy pitch that would be remarkable if it wasn’t based on blarney.

Mitt’s in for it in Florida unless Newt Gingrich shoots himself in the foot, or Romney suddenly tunes up his political tin ear.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Chris Christie: ‘Gingrich has embarrassed the party…’

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mitt Romney needed a strong interview with Chris Wallace today and he got one. Romney communicated easily for the first time in a while, seemed relaxed, but also forthcoming on mistakes made, including that letting his tax returns distract his campaign. So, he announced on Fox he’ll be releasing his 2010 on his website Tuesday, as well as an outline of his 2011 returns. Romney will never be warm and fuzzy, but when confronted on his religion and tithing and other personal issues, he acquitted himself well today.

Mark, my husband and a recovering Mormon, had one big beef with Romney when it came to his answer on tithing. In the Mormon Church, every year you have to declare to the bishop whether you’re giving a full 10%. Romney could have said that he gave 10% to his church long before he had his own money. He could have opened up and stated the verse in the Old Testament and shown some heart at the core of his faith. Since he needs to win over more conservatives, it’s the move to make.

This is the biggest issue in Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Not the Mormonism, but the inability to allow conservatives to see what makes the man who he is. With Newt unloading to the point of too much information on every subject in the universe, Romney comes off even more inaccessible, which will be deadly going forward.

Meanwhile, Romney surrogate Chris Christie played offense on Meet the Press for Mitt Romney, making the best case for him, showing the attribute Romney doesn’t, which is being able to connect and talk straight in a way that would be a real attribute on Romney’s team, including as vice president. Christie was on fire today.

Gov. Christie said aloud what a lot of people are whispering behind Gingrich’s back:

“I think Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time,” he said. “Whether he’ll do it again in the future, I don’t know. But Gov. Romney never has. … We all know the record. He was run out of the speakership by his own party. He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy who has had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party. You remember these times, you were here. …I don’t need to regale the country with that entire list again except to say this: I’m not saying he will do it again in the future, but sometimes past is prologue.”

Mitt Romney’s down, but he’s far from being out. He knows he’s got a real fight in Florida, which he needs to win. Between Romney and Christie, it’s clear they’re coming for Newt Gingrich in a whole new way. The issue of character is now going to be up front.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

NEWT GINGRICH WINS SOUTH CAROLINA

Memo to GOP Star Chamber. RE: Not Losing the *(&#! House and Senate GOP Majority w/ Newt Disaster. Time for a Secret Meeting. – Mike Murphy tweet

UPDATE (10:00 p.m.): Once again I want to make it very clear, I do not have a candidate in the race in 2012. I will not support any candidate this year. The headline is simply a statement based firmly in reality.

Romney got clocked in South Carolina. Gingrich was in full grandiosity swoon that doesn’t lend itself to synopsis. But his characterization of Pres. Obama is unrecognizable & loopy. GOTV jet engine for Democrats. If Newt doesn’t implode it’s a first. The graph on CNN with women & men listening in Florida went sky high for males, plus for women, but lower. Earlier, priceless Chris Matthews on Gingrich in Florida: “vibraphone of erogenous zones,” referring to playing all the ethnic richness of the state.

A great mentor of mine used to say you can’t win until you’ve lost the fear of failure. Mitt Romney as underdog, could he turn into a force? Republicans sure hope so.

Rick Santorum serves up working class red meat, making the pitch for vice president.

Ron Paul seems to be talking not just about 2012, but addressing what he hopes will be a revolutionary movement that will be passed, I believe, to his son Rand Paul.

_____original post below_____

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt. – Washington Examiner



The polling compilation from the Washington Examiner article linked above won’t surprise many, especially the girls around here.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ice Mitt Romney, who’s now trying to hold on instead of trying to win, at the very least represents the corporate Wall Street decay in both parties for all to see. There’s some educational benefits to this contest.

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ick Newt Gingrich reveals the rot of Republicans, but it also lets Pres. Obama off the hook on any substantive challenge that won’t be reduced to race baiting “food stamp presidency” invective.

Maybe that’s what the America people have earned for their laziness and lack of involved citizenship. People don’t seem to care that indefinite detention is real and that we continue to hold people at Gitmo without trial, because we’re too squeamish to incarcerate them with murderers in maximum security prisons. The ideals on which this country was founded are less important than the fear factor pushed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Pres. Obama’s refusal to lead continually revealing what ails us.

Leading from behind didn’t start with the bombing of Libya, though it is the first time our sleepy national press picked up on it. Pres. Obama’s entire leadership style is to lead from behind so as not to put himself too far out in front on any issue. With a majority in Congress his first two years he negotiated with himself on the stimulus, while bargaining with private insurance and drug companies, never stepping out on health care, until he sided with Stupak for optics. Leading up to the 2010 midterms, Obama hung back on offering an economic message, then extended the Bush tax cuts when he got shellacked. On the Keystone Pipeline decision this week, it wasn’t made boldly on the side of principle and the potentially dangerous environmental impact; instead it was no for now, blaming his decision on Republicans who wouldn’t give him more time, with the win more to do with activists raising a ruckus than anything. On contraception, which could have easily been embedded earlier in ACA, the decision came down just yesterday on the heels of a report that had an Obama official warning that the budget to come wouldn’t be liked by the left. This requires warning? Pres. Obama works through delivering carrot (contraceptive coverage) and stick (scuttling Plan B) tactics that depend on his political needs (the coming budget to woo independents) and have a foundation in austerity, choosing conservatism as his guide.

However, up against Newt Gingrich little would matter beyond the ick factor of this despicable man.

When it comes to women, Mr. Ick, who’s always had a problem with female voters and for very good reasons, doesn’t stand a chance against Mr. Cool.

Oh, and the video above has gone viral. …as well it should. Did you hear those squeals?

Read full story · Comments { 102 }

Gingrich Soars on Wings of Obama Fluffing Media*

*See note below

“The liberal media,” she added, “and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time. … I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. … “Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. – Daily Caller

The headline I offer above won’t be used by the insider press, because they’re not that honest or blunt. However, the Obama fluffing media is the foundation for what may manifest on Saturday, which is a Newt Gingrich win in South Carolina. Politico represents the kinder, gentler argument:

By twice castigating one of the right’s perennial boogeymen — the press — Gingrich made a gut-level connection with conservatives who think they get a raw deal from the news media. – Politico

Sarah Palin whipping up anti-establishment conservatives is a perfect play when the American media is woven into the narrative. It comes at a time in an election year that is already shaping up to be advantage Pres. Obama in the media, though not for the same reasons as it was in 2008, which is proven in my book The Hillary Effect.

But Palin calling Brian Ross part of the liberal media reveals she’s just not all that astute as an analyst, nor is her audience; though details and facts aren’t the point. Ross was part of the ABC crew who trumpeted Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress, complete with composite picture that included candidate Hillary, when Clinton’s campaign released the documents of when she was first lady. All Ross and ABC wanted was coverage, which they got, as they did yesterday with Marianne Gingrich.

John King had to ask the question, though you can disagree it had to come at the top of the debate, however, making King the subject is a distraction. It’s not for the right and conservatives. So Gingrich teeing off on King, who did not flinch, with a bank shot to the entire media, is not only what Newt does, but taps into the foundation of anger that’s been festering among the Republican based since 2008. As you saw in the hall, it’s a winner, but for a good reason.

That’s because in 2008 conservatives and Republicans watched candidate Obama get glowing press and very little of the scrutiny, with their anticipation it will happen again justified. On Morning Joe, Ms. Brzezinski plays the role of spokeswoman for the White House, though that’s nothing compared to what we’ll see on Fox News Channel once a nominee is selected by the GOP. However, if past is prologue, Fox’s partisanship will not be repeated elsewhere.

Even Joe Scarborough talked about conservatives being sick of being “marginalized.” It’s not a ludicrous statement when you consider Fox News Channel’s prowess, but also Scarborough’s own network, which rarely offers criticism of Pres. Obama, even when earned.

You can see that policy best represented by Chris Matthews calling Andrew Sullivan a “genius” for writing his Newsweek piece this week, calling Obama’s critics “dumb.” It’s echoed by Ed Schultz and all the way through primetime. It doesn’t bother Matthews or his bosses that Sullivan has been disgraced through his harangues against Sarah Palin, his ridiculous intelligence and race ramblings, both of which have the virtue of being totally fact free.

In a year when Republicans are serving up no one who can beat Pres. Obama, conservatives are standing up to say they at least want someone to state their case and communicate to America that they’re mad as hell at the media playing defense for Pres. Obama. The target of that ire is not only Barack Obama, but a media who fell in love with this brilliant political athlete who naively believed he alone could change the American world of politics and suckered the entire American media, minus yours truly and a few others, that he could make it happen.

It’s not entirely Pres. Obama’s fault to believe this nonsense since he came into Washington with the American press at his feet.

TM NOTE: The title of this piece was chosen to make a point. That the media choosing sides ends up impacting our politics in a way that benefits no one, especially when it elevates the likes of Newt Gingrich. As we begin another election cycle, it’s important to stress what happened previously, because as we saw last night, the pro Obama media bias from 2008 is very fresh in the minds of conservatives.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Newt Unloads

**UPDATED BELOW**

“I thought John did a great job.” – Newt Gingrich, with Anderson Cooper in post-debate



Kaboom.

Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

My two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am, frankly, astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

Gingrich also released his tax returns before the debate, which led into a conversation that made Mitt Romney look awful.

Santorum is having a very strong debate, which will help Romney a bit, which he’s going to need after Newt’s rocking start.

Across Twitter, the media class proclaimed Newt won the debate 5 minutes in.

Romney’s tax return meltdown is below. It’s not a bad performance, but most of the time he’s been receding. It feels like Romney is just trying to keep from screwing up, like a team that’s trying to hold a lead, because they’re afraid of blowing the lead.

[update 2] When John King asks what the candidates would do differently Romney said he’d have tried to get “25 more votes”; Santorum said he’d do nothing, then offered a phenomenal statement on how amazing it is for him to be even standing on the stage considering he began with no money and everyone discounted him after losing his last senate race. It was a true moment of heart that comes in a debate that’s been very good for him.

[update] Romney team releases Newt Gingrich’s grandiose greatest hits and it’s a killer.



Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Newt was honest with Marianne Gingrich about his sexuality

“… Callista doesn’t care what I do. … He wanted an open marriage.” – Marianne Gingrich

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We’re on the other side of hell hath no fury, folks.

Marianne Gingrch has now given the interview she’s threatened to unpack, but was saving for the perfect moment. The result is not presidential, but it is human for a segment of his gender.

At least Bill Clinton had the survival instincts not to ask.

How interesting that after one failed marriage and in the throes of another, Newt Gingrich honestly opens up to tell his wife he wants to stay married, but desires to sleep with another woman, now his current wife, Callista.

It’s not great for the get out the women’s vote.

It’s no secret that I find Newt Gingrich not equipped or worthy of the presidency. However, this revelation is going to fizzle for a reason. But it will be delicious to watch tonight on Nightline.

Men of all political persuasions and religious affiliations, though the faithful don’t stray on Sunday, can relate to Newt’s request. Back in the ’90s I did enough interviews with men and research into sexuality and marriage to prove to me this is true, which I don’t believe changes over time.

What Marianne Gingrich’s confession confirms is that once women get a whiff they won’t vote for this man in a million years.

Whatever you say about Mitt Romney, and I’ll have a post up on him tonight that says a lot, he’s not repellent to women, a voting block neither party can win without.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Writer of Red Tails Not Invited to White House Screening



The film is by George Lucas and debuts this week, January 20. It has been 20 years in the making.

Pres. Obama had a screening of the film recently, but he didn’t invite the writer, John Ridley, which was confirmed today on “Morning Joe.” He “didn’t make the cut.” His wife was not amused.

I hope everyone puts this film on your calendar.

The Tuskegee Airmen are a phenomenal part of history that deserves to be celebrated, commemorated and remembered.

My Uncle Dick would have saluted these men.

We can do so ourselves by seeing this film.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

J.F.K., King and the Archives of a Giant

**UPDATED**

There are nearly a million documents associated with the life of Martin Luther King Jr. These pages will present a more dynamic view than is often seen of Dr. King’s life and times. The documents reveal the scholar, the father, and the pastor. Through these papers we see the United States of America at one of its most vulnerable, most honest and perhaps most human moments in history. There are letters bearing the official marks of royalty and the equally regal compositions of children. You will see speeches, telegrams, scribbled notes, patient admonitions and urgent pleas. This spotlight shows you a glimpse of the remarkable history within this collection. – The King Center – Archives

Oh, the irony, MLK digital archives are brought to the world by J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dr. King‘s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King was destined to pave the way, not just for Barack Obama, but for another Democratic president back in his day, including J.F.K. Pres. Kennedy impacted my life a great deal through my big brother, which I write about in my new book. It’s why I wrote, produced and directed a one woman show “Weeping for J.F.K.” back in 2005. It took the collision of two great men to dismantle the prejudice of America’s political history, even if civil rights remains a scarred wound that doesn’t take much to rip open.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light, with a big push from Bobby, and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over.

Watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963 (audio), JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. had gotten through to Kennedy, revealing something from which J.F.K. had once been distanced, a world away.

John F. Kennedy’s address that June:

Good evening, my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.

I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.

I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.

Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.

The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.

Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

It took constant campaigning from King, but JFK came to understand that action was required. Kennedy became the first president since Truman to trumpet the cause of civil rights. President John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation was met with fierce opposition by the southern delegations of Congress. He was assassinated before it became law.

The legislation LBJ finally signed was Kennedy’s hope for a new America. Had John F. Kennedy lived, his civil rights actions would have been met hard in the south during his 1964 campaign. JFK never lived to fight this fight. The legislation LBJ signed was Kennedy’s final vision, and the words LBJ spoke upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encapsulized the moment for history: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”

King’s eulogy upon JFK’s death proved the respect each man had won from the other and that politicians can change to forge great hopes for those oppressed. He said that John F. Kennedy lived his life to “move forward with more determination to rid our nation of the vestiges of racial segregation and discrimination.”

King made the men of the 1960s come his way, see the overwhelming injustices. Like many great men, history has given evidence that he was wholly human and flawed. His life force was gargantuan. His courage unbounded. His faith guided his life, because he knew his soul would live on and on. His memory has as well.

It’s not many a man who could change the course of John F. Kennedy’s life and his philosophy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had the power to do just that and it changed America forever.



Edited from post first published 1.15.07, re-posted once again on this Dr. King holiday.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats


As much as our national media deserves criticism, a central focus in my book, some are at least offering alternative candidates airtime. Chuck Todd interviewed Rocky Anderson when he announced the formation of the Justice Party, Joe Scarborough invited Buddy Roemer on Morning Joe, with George Stephenopoulos the latest, though there are other examples as well. Our media is starting to at least acknowledge what’s going on outside the establishment bubble, which is important, because free media can at least get these candidates and the cause to challenge the status quo into the national conversation.

Stephen Colbert easily got as much time as Rick Perry on ABC’s “This Week,” now back with George Stephanopoulos at the helm. In the race against Romney, one of the most hilarious and effective counter intuitive punches was leveled by Colbert today through “Mitt the Ripper,” making a mockery of both sides where Mitt Romney is concerned. It had the added virtue and punch of representing what Ron Paul is doing, but also, if to a much lesser extent, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson.

Colbert satirizes the over the top tactics to make Mitt Romney the target of all that ails our country, our economy and the corporate tactics that are taking down the middle class. Colbert’s satirical attack on Romney also has the credibility of not only representing Newt Gingrich’s banchee Bain cry, but also partisan Democrats who have their heads in the sand about their own side’s culpability where crony capitalism is concerned, which I wrote about this past week.

From ABC:

Colbert’s super PAC, which was re-named The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC after Colbert announced his exploratory committee, launched an ad in South Carolina this week labeling Mitt Romney a “serial killer.”

The Colbert super PAC ad is an obvious spoof of anti-Romney ads being run by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC in the Palmetto State. Gingrich has said any untrue statements should be removed from the ad, but, because the PAC does not coordinate with Gingrich, it has refused to re-edit the ads, which some say stretch the truth about Romney’s time at Bain Capital.

Colbert took a similar tone, saying he had “nothing to do” with the “serial killer” ads.

“I am not calling anyone a serial killer,” Colbert said. “That’s not my super PAC.”

On the other side, seriously challenging whether other conservative candidates are an alternative, there is Ron Paul. His anti-war, non-interventionist foreign policy is resonating with young people like no candidate in decades, which is wrapped in an economic message that’s simple and clear.

Paul’s candidacy has brought about a real battle inside progressive circles on the power and potential of Ron Paul’s influence in 2012, with a growing number of anti-war progressives willing to forgive clear issues Dr. Paul raises about his aversion to any safety net, his libertarian notions of freedom and liberty that don’t apply to women, as well as his states rights flippancy on civil rights. However, it’s close to inarguable that anyone who wants a real shift in the way we handle our foreign policy and economic policy, both of which are crippling what we can do here at home, has a real reason to consider voting for Ron Paul, since there will always be points of disagreements on any candidate chosen. The one thing you can say about Paul is that he’s the most philosophically consistent and transparent politician in the race today.

The pressing issues of 2012 include the erosion of civil liberties, which Pres. Obama and Democrats have approved, going along with Bush-Cheney neoconservatism terrorism polices, as well as the model of regime change. Economically, Obama, Democrats, Republicans and the majority of conservatives still approve of deep foreign intervention and a cascade of military involvement. Both parties evidently are convinced that America’s economic engine depends on defense expenditures, which is as frighting a thought as it is plausibly true. When it comes to priorities, neither Democrats or Republicans are offering an answer.

Robin Koerner wrote about the challenges in 2012 last summer on Huffington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

Obama fans and Democratic voters say in emails and tweets to me all the time that they’re “trapped” and have no choice but to vote for another Obama term. If you choose to vote for another 4 years of Democratic capitulation to conservatism, fiscal profligacy that benefits the 1%, and foreign policy intervention and militarism, that’s your choice. Go for it, just don’t say you have no choices.

Another issue is the American electorate is still comprised of a majority of people who are embarrassed about being associated with candidates who are outside the system. People want to be associated with the winner and outsiders like Ron Paul, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson or any other politician taking on the establishment can’t win, because the money is stacked against them. When the American electorate won’t step outside their self-imposed partisan boxes they construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A couple of emails from people on the subject, one on Rocky Anderson’s candidacy: “does Anderson/JUSTICE grab you?”

One person wrote the following, with an accompanying link that encourages Democrats to register Republican to support Ron Paul and send a message:

Interesting idea from “George Washington” blog: to get the issues of war, civil liberties at least debated, register Republican one time only, vote Ron Paul in Rep. Primary. Then figure out what to do in the general.. –link provided in email went to this text

Forget what you’ve been taught … the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are virtually identical on all core matters.
Obama, Gingrich, Romney and the whole sorry lot are for more war, for further crackdowns on our Constitutional liberties, and for giving the Federal Reserve all of the unchecked power that it wants.

Don’t fall for the old divide-and-conquer trick.

Whatever you may think of Ron Paul, he has consistently championed three core American for three decades. Paul has consistently argued for the following three positions which Americans overwhelmingly favor:

  • Stop the never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars
  • Restore our liberties, and stop the march towards martial law, indefinite detention idiocy, and the crack down on the Internet
  • Rein in or abolish the Federal Reserve
  • None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates support these positions, and the mainstream media has done everything it can to try to squelch debate on these issues.

Somewhere between Stephen Colbert calling Mitt Romney a “serial killer,” with the Democrats mimicking that cry without any hint of irony of their own crony capitalism, and Ron Paul’s power with many people, it’s clear no matter what the eventual outcome is in November that the 20th century paradigm of two party rule is being challenged in fundamental ways that could over time bring about its replacement.

Obama fans charge that this conversation is actually about trying to depress the vote, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Others posit that it’s about voting or starting a third party, which is part of the small thinking that permeates our political discourse, because choices outside the establishment parties exist today, with the options stronger and more viable than they’ve ever been.

The intent of this conversation is to inspire and empower people to think about their vote and what it means when they cast it for either Democrats or Republicans, considering what each represent. Both of these establishment parties are bought and paid for by corporations and Wall Street, as are their institutional backers. All part of the blind partisan pack who either squeal “Obama is a socialist” or contend Romney is a “serial killer” capitalist, while railing at Ron Paul as a wacko or worse to make you embarrassed about your vote, simply because Paul and others are outsiders taking on the status quo.

Consider being a change agent instead of a person captive to the marketing of change, which comes from both sides.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow, a Super PAC not associated with Stephen Colbert’s South Carolina presidential campaign, is not responsible for this message.


Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Throw the Book at Them


That wasn’t the theory being espoused by Tea Party wingnut Dana Loesch, who on her Thursday show embarrassed herself, Marines, not to mention CNN. From Politico’s Dylan Byers, who now has the job Ben Smith used to do:

“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”

CNN must be so proud. They hired Loesch to do Tea Party “analysis” and she’s seen continually on that channel, giving a bad name to anyone who dissects the political battlefield.

In an interview with Chuck Todd on Friday, Gen. Barry McCaffrey said the four Marines who disgraced their uniform and this country were young kids.

If that’s the case, though it’s not been corroborated, you have to ask if recruiting standards, which were lowered in the last few years out of desperation, had anything to do with this incident.

It’s not Abu Ghraib, and these guys don’t represent Marines (my brother is one), but with Iraq torture as a backdrop it still says a lot.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Capitalism Out of the Closet

**UPDATED**

Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it.

Politifact has watched the video “(repeatedly!)” and has a moment to moment tick tock rundown. They’ll get to analyzing it later. John Hinderaker takes out after Rick Perry, Think Progress and others. [update]…and now Glen Kessler has bestowed on “King of Bain” the dreaded 4 Pinocchios. The CNN Money article below dissects “When Romney Came to Town.”

To be clear, none of this is to suggest that Romney and Bain didn’t make some very real mistakes, or that they shouldn’t be criticized for situations in which they profited from financial engineering rather than from company growth. But the Winning Our Future PAC goes beyond that, intentionally obscuring the record in a way that makes such honest discussions more difficult. And for that, Winning Our Future deserves some scorn of its own. – CNN Money

What it doesn’t say is that even though the film casts Mitt Romney as the evil capitalist Ken doll, let’s not pretend this guy is standing alone in these practices. If we come out of this believing Romney’s the only bad guy, while Democrats smack their chops with glee that they now have him right where they want him, America deserves to go keep fumbling along financially, because long-term, slow pain with no solutions may be the only thing that will one day wake people up.

It’s a mistake to see the 28-minute video above and think this is just about Mitt Romney. He rightly earns the role of diabolical villain in the video, but what he represents is why Occupy Wall Street rose up in the first place. Romney’s a master at playing the Wall Street system, which even the film above stipulates is facilitated by investment bankers who helped Mitt Romney and others like him work the current system that collapsed in 2008, caused the current unemployment rate, but also the hollowing out of the American middle class that started a long time ago.

There’s a reason Rudy Giuliana went off on Newt Gingrich and it’s because this video exposes the entire American financial wagon train that is the foundational tenet of the Republican Party. It also strips bare the primal scream of Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing rabble who lie to Americans every day saying they, too, have a chance to be Mitt Romney.

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous, because some people are so desperate today they’ll buy anything if it has even half a chance of getting them out of the financial hole they’re in. Rush Limbaugh is actually just as guilty as Mitt Romney.

It’s all lies and our entire political system is bankrolled by it, with the person who can best hawk the marketing of the American Corporation picked and put in charge. However, it’s not this person, the president, who actually is in charge of anything. It’s the wise men of Wall Street (women are never let near the controls for long) who hold the power and they’re tucked inside and rarely seen.

The Mitt Romneys in our business and investment class can no longer be bothered with creating, building or envisioning anything any longer. It’s been this way since the ’80s and before. That people are suddenly shocked and shrieking that the middle class is losing it’s core, seen through the job loss and devastation in this video shows how lost we are, how morally bankrupt our society has become. There’s a whole other class below the middle class that’s been growing for years, including under Pres. Obama, who he hasn’t addressed once, except to announce he’s pulling their heating oil subsidies. The poor now has company, but don’t think anyone, least of all the Mitt Romneys, intend to do anything about it.

Mitt Romney didn’t begin the gutting of our manufacturing sector or the gambling with investors money. If he wasn’t running for president we wouldn’t be having this conversation and had he not gone after Newt Gingrich none of this would have surfaced until Obama reelect got him as an opponent and started unloading and unpacking Mitt Romney’s very successful business career, which even an Obama adviser, Steve Rattner, said this week was exemplary.

“Fair is fair. … But I think these attacks are unfair. I think Mitt Romney, not only had a very successful career throughout business, but Bain Capital is a terrific, first class firm. Managing money mostly for foundations, for endowments, for pension funds on behalf of exactly the people Rick Perry thinks he’s trying to harm, and they had a great record with 80 or 90 investments, all of which made a lot of money for their investors… and he did it in a perfectly honorably, appropriate way. … – Steve Rattner, on “Morning Joe”

Mr. Rattner was Pres. Obama Administration’s Car Czar and Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury, and is a good Democrat. Are you seeing it clearly yet?

Can Mitt Romney survive this video and the 30-second spots that come from it? The states coming up in the primaries have been hard hit by a bad economy. However, Romney’s bankrolled to the teeth and the pressure’s on to quiet things down, so I’m guessing he can. The other side of this pile on is that at some point people are going to look at it and ask “Is Mitt Romney really the cause of all that ails us?”

What do people think will happen if a different Republican is nominated or if Pres. Obama stays in office? What huge difference will it make?

The caterwauling over Mitt Romney tapping the core of American capitalism for his own benefit is rooted in partisanship and doesn’t address the wider reality, which is that there are hundreds of Mitt Romneys in this country, many of whom got the Bush tax cut extensions, which Pres. Obama gladly gave and never really mounted a nationwide fight against. If you truly understand the calamity facing our middle class there is no way morally or in good conscience you could possibly back down from this fight, turning it into a war if you have to. Yes, a class war, but when Democrats hail compromise and gut Dodd-Frank or go along to keep things moving how innocent are they for watching what’s developed under their own backers and bundlers?

Using Steve Rattner’s defense of Mr. Romney and Bain Capital as an example, what are Democratic venture capitalists and heads of holding companies and investment bankers supposed to do in the shadow of this damning video that reveals the sausage making that is our economic system? As Rattner reveals, Democrats in his class can feel his pain and you can bet they’re just glad it’s Romney and not them.

That Wall Street Democrats are fleeing Obama’s side because of hurt feelings and would certainly find common cause in the onslaught that would be unleashed on Mitt Romney if he’s the nominee, who is one of their own, is another interesting tidbit of this tale. Sympathy vote, anyone? More likely, they’ll send cash.

If Occupy stays relevant, the entire American Corporation class will have to go underground, because Mitt Romney may be the star of the film, but they’re mirror images of this man and his methods and we’ve heard a lot about who’s been hurt lately, but now it’s in a film reel.

But where are the African Americans, Latinos and people of color? Evidently, they don’t get touched by the American Corporation class, besides, it’s white working class Mitt Romney will need to beat Obama, so let’s stay focused, people.

The whole event is obscene and the rot of our political class exposed.

What’s ironic is that this devastating video and the launch of it into the Republican primary season was made possible by conservative David Bossie, the president of the pro-Gingrich Super PAC. Bossie is the man who produced “The Hillary Movie” that culminated in the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United and the current flood of money we’re now seeing drown our democracy and put Mitt Romney and the entire Republican Party on DEFCON 1. Karma’s a bitch and she’s got one hell of a sense of humor.

That Obama reelect will trumpet the video and all of its parts in the general election season, freaking out their own Democratic version of the Mitt Romney class, is wrought with irony.

What we need is a different kind of conservation about the country we are going to be in the 21st century and that’s not coming from any direction or either political party. The only thing that matters to the partisans is putting their sock puppet in power, while the money men just keep on funneling the system to the top.

It no longer matters who ends up in the White House and Congress anymore, because the Mitt Romneys of this country are the ones really in charge and they won’t allow anyone else in, buying politicians and the presidency.

We the people are simply being held hostages by a monetary and political system that is out of control and which can’t be fixed, because the concentrated power is locked down and loaded for anyone who tries.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

New York Times Asks Whether Truthtelling Should be Part of Reporting

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?

Arthur Brisbane’s post today left me speechless and that’s not easy to do.

It’s the most important piece you can read and it sheds light on our entire problem in the media and their complicity in helping politicians market absolutely rubbish.

Anyone who has read my book The Hillary Effect will see evidence of what’s happened throughout our media, which is represented in Brisbane’s remarkable acknowledgement that as public editor of the Times he believes that a snappy ap where facts are offered as a sidebar replaces truth that once was expected to be embedded in what people read.

From Jay Rosen:

Somewhere along the way, telling truth from falsehood was surpassed by other priorities to which the press felt a stronger duty. Arthur Brisbane, public editor of the New York Times, was unaware of this history when he asked users of the Times whether reporters should call out false statements.

That this breaks out on the web pages of the New York Times, no less, is truly remarkable. But that it does so in a flip commentary is…

No wonder people are uncomfortable when new-media writers like myself offer up uncomfortable truths. They seem to be optional, even for what used to be the paper of record, the New York Times.

We’re a stupid, lazy nation, but our media is worse. No wonder we’re getting the candidates and leaders we are today.

This inadvertent admission from Brisbane reveals why Fox News Channel has gotten away with it’s GOP cheerleading. It illustrates why MSNBC decided to throw gravitas to the wind and offer non-stop ideological nonsense, minus Chuck Todd and Dylan Ratigan, with Chris Hayes in there now too.

Truth is now optional.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Jodi Kantor Refutes First Lady Michelle Obama on ‘Angry Black Woman’

Jodi Kantor: Corie, I never called the first lady an “angry black woman.” Not in those words, and not by implication. The book shows her as an impassioned and supportive if sometimes critical spouse, loving mom, and most of all, as a successful professional trying to figure out the very confusing role of first lady. To me, that’s the most fascinating storyline in the book– watching Michelle Obama figure out this role for herself.


Yesterday on Facebook, Jodi Kantor, the author of The Obamas, did a chat through the New York Times FB page. Before moderators got fully engaged the nastiness coming from Obama supporters was off the charts, most of which teed off on the “angry black woman” charge. Once the moderators showed up things calmed down, with the most offensive comments taken down.

It should go without saying that I identified with the attacks on Kantor from Obama die hards, which I’ve also received going back to 2007, but which escalated when my book The Hillary Effect was published. Obviously, with Kantor’s connections to the traditional media and publishing worlds, as well as her reach, her experience is no doubt much more acute.

What we’re talking about here is a back and forth between an author and the subject of her book. Like anyone doing a book on such an electric subject as the Obamas, or Hillary Rodham Clinton, to get it published is an ordeal in itself. The fact checking and scrutiny is overwhelming at times. Quite candidly, publishing The Hillary Effect and getting it just right was a bear, but once I did and found the right team it was worth it. That I take on the media, which is deserved but not appreciated, is an additional challenge for my team. Kantor’s job to get it right, fair and true had to be intense.

Twice in the FB chat, Kantor addressed the “angry black woman” characterization, which she was charged with making.

Jodi Kantor: Bene, just to be clear, “The Obamas” does not say that Mrs. Obama is an angry black woman, in those words or by implication. (Nor does it say that she and Rahm Emanuel clashed directly.) For five years, I’ve been working on portraying her in an accurate, human, well-rounded way. Check out the work and decide for yourself: http://jodikantor.net/articles/

The “angry black woman” characterization actually came from First Lady Michelle Obama herself in an interview with Gayle King, who’s now part of a brand new CBS morning show. It was obviously meant as a preemptive strike to shape the narrative about Kantor’s book, implying it’s unfair, even factually inaccurate, which goes directly at the author’s credibility.

From Lynn Sweet, of the Chicago Sun-Times today:

“That’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman,” she told CBS News in an interview broadcast Wednesday.

To deal with it, “I just try to be me. And my hope is that, over time, people get to know me, and they get to judge me for me.”

As Kantor said yesterday, she tapped “200 ppl, including 33 White House aides, and the White House cooperated with the book,” but after Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Man things got a lot more difficult. It’s easy to say that the secretive nature of the Obamas will only get moreso, with the ring around them tightening after her book.

I’ve come to the defense of First Lady Michelle Obama many times. That she went to a friendly journalistic source like Gayle King for this interview isn’t surprising at all. Her defensiveness however and choosing to invoke the “angry black woman” charge against author Jodi Kantor is worth noting, especially since the author denies the characterization completely. That Kantor also offers an archive to prove her goal is fairness is something to which I can also relate. Unfortunately, in the Obama era, blaming the messenger for telling even a true, fair and accurate story is not appreciated by subjects, especially when it’s the Obamas. They’re just not used to the unvarnished treatment.

I jumped in at one point when the talk turned to first ladies, with Kantor, whom I do not know, addressed one of my comments:

Taylor Marsh: Your comment about first ladies, that there is “condescension towards first ladies out there,” is a very important subject. Nancy Reagan, as well as Hillary Clinton, were formidable women with deep impact in their husband’s presidencies. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone as deeply intelligent and strong as Mrs. Obama would run into some friction with the men’s club inside the White House.

Taylor: I think you are on to something. No man gets elected to the presidency without a really canny, determined, effective spouse. And then the first couple gets to the White House, and the new first lady gets recast as a helpmeet, and we know what happens to first ladies who are deemed meddlers— unelected figures who hold unearned powers. One of the most fascinating things in my reporting was watching Mrs. Obama, who is a very frank and strongminded person, wrangle with this. Or even think about the decisions she has to make in terms of how and when to give feedback to her husband. The president, any president, is criticized constantly, daily. So if you’re the first lady, do you really want him to come home to more criticism? But on the other hand, if you think he’s making a mistake, you have a moral and spousal imperative to stop him, because the stakes are so, so high. If you read my book, please keep that difficult choice in mind throughout, and think through how you would handle it.

It’s easy to understand why Mrs. Obama is sensitive to the “angry black woman” tag when it’s actually made. But sometimes being too defensive about an author telling a story based on interviews, as Kantor has done, reveals something else entirely.

The good news for Jodi Kantor is that Mrs. Obama helped her sell even more books than she would have if the First Lady hadn’t called her friend Gayle King and gone on CBS to complain.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Attacks on Mitt Romney Fizzle Out Quickly, Media Remains Part of the Story

Mitt Romney suggested in today’s debate that only rich people should run for office, and then quickly celebrated the fact that he’d forced a rival to take out a loan against his house. Romney said his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, had told him, “Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay a mortgage.” – Romney: Politics For The Rich

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ladies, we’ve arrived, the last two times I tried to watch the video above, the ads running before it were for Olay and Cover Girl. Hopefully they’ll get their act together so you can see the whole Meet the Press debate because right now it’s hit and miss. ([update] Video working great now.)

It’s news that after neutering themselves in 14 other debates, the GOP wannabes on stage with Mitt Romney during the stellar Meet the Press (transcript here) debate finally decide to take him on. Unfortunately, when Newt Gingrich tried it he started off by whining about time keeping, then when he served up an attack on Romney’s Super PAC Mitt had an answer that unpacked every single charge against Gingrich, all of which were true.

But after those first 30 minutes, Romney’s rivals mostly stopped their criticism. In fact, the entire debate was a metaphor for the entire GOP campaign — piling on Romney lost its steam. Collectively, the group just doesn’t seem to know how to sustain the attack, and that explains why Romney is ahead now and why he is getting closer and closer to becoming a “de facto” nominee. (Romney also did a pretty good job of parrying the attacks that came his way.) – NBC First Read

The other important thing about the debates, last night vs. this morning, was the difference between ABC’s ineffectual, blundering attempt versus David Gregory’s tour de force moderation. The comparison is nothing but brutal, especially where Ms. Sawyer is concerned. Gregory’s questions and pacing were simply in a different league.

That all ended the instant NBC handed the “analysis” over to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who had Howard Fineman and Eugene Robinson on as his first guests. What then followed was an unexpected moment.

Romney mouthpiece, former Gov. John Sununu, blasted Matthews from the moment the pro-Obama former newsman handed the focus over to him.

“Reveling & wallowing.. Stop being ridiculous … You guys have an agenda” – John Sununu

They sure do and it’s not providing viewers with information so they can make up their minds without being spoon fed talking points that support one candidate over another.

Just because Fox News Channel is bought and paid for by Republican hacks doesn’t excuse MSNBC from offering the bookend for Democrats.

The real question is why can’t CNN capitalize on their competition’s obvious cheerleading coverage for one party over another at a time when both big two parties are losing affiliated voters, with independents sick of everyone picking sides over offering facts and truth?

People are so used to so-called political analysts picking a side they can’t recognize truth or facts when offered, with the messenger always getting blamed. It’s one thing to openly declare a conservative or liberal bias, but pimping for one politician over another is nakedly dishonest.

It was important to see Mitt Romney finally challenged, but it was way too little way too late to be able to do the job. He’s on a roll, but more importantly, he’s got confidence and has his talking points down so that he’s now become the teflon frontrunner.

However, as you’ll see from the story at the top of the page, Mitt Romney just can’t help telling the truth about his life, which often reveals his 1% privilege, which when compared to Pres. Obama’s up from his bootstraps biography is decidedly elite.

Conservatives missed their chance by not having a representative candidate to challenge Romney from the start. But people like Jim Demint are also to blame, because he didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility of backing a right wing conservative that might lose.

“I want to do whatever I can to convince my colleagues that Sen. Santorum is the right man,” Bauer told The Hill late Saturday afternoon. – The Hill

Now it’s simply too late.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Michael Hastings on Obama and the Military

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Michael Hastings, the reporter whose story led to the sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has done it again. Given us an inside look at the people who are in charge, this time it’s Pres. Obama.

This morning, he talked about “an anecdote” from the second chapter in his book, The Operators. He tells of candidate Obama arriving in Baghdad in 2008 and events around a speech he gave at the embassy. Afterward, according to Hastings, Barack Obama started “complaining about having to take pictures with American soldiers and diplomats.”

One of Hasting’s sources for the book told him, “he clearly didn’t get the culture of the military and the cultures of these wars.”

Willie Geist, introducing a chapter he was about to read, characterized it like this: “the relationship between some of the generals, the senior military officials with Pres. Obama was sort of strange.”

“We wanted to be led. We would have been putty in his hands. But the President wasn’t comfortable playing that role in the meetings anyway. …”

It’s all in the video above.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Look Out Mitt, Newtmaggedon Catching On

Love him or hate him, Erick Erickson has captured the Republican zeitgeist of the season.

As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself. But by God Mitt Romney may now get the political beating everyone has been expecting him to get. Newt Gingrich has nothing left to lose. He can go Newtlear against the guy he sees as having destroyed him. Newt Gingrich can unleash unmitigated hell against MItt Romney and just like the attacks on Newt were true, they’ll all be true about MItt Romney too.

His analysis that Rick Perry’s policy people were good, while Santorum’s retail politics didn’t prove squat, reveals how mediocre a political analyst he is, but he’s still got the beat of the right’s pulse. His point about “Newtlear,” which I call Newtmageddon, however, is important, because it’s not just about Gingrich versus Mitt. Faith leaders are on the warpath, too, joining the Rush Limbaugh crowd, trying to prevent another McCain type nomination; that he will endorse Romney today is the kiss of death to conservatives.

Jonathan Martin has an interesting report that’s representative of the battle gone wild on the right:

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.

“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.

Call it the Huckabee hangover.

After having their dream candidate in 2008, conservative faith leaders in 2012 are faced with several candidates representing their interests. Question is how to attempt to winnow a field of social conservative candidates and push politicians out who just won’t quit.

Even Rick Perry, who basically delivered a concession speech last night, is now headed back to New Hampshire now that Bachmann has bowed out. But Perry performing so poorly in Iowa, even after going full tilt on his religiosity, proves not even some Republicans get evangelical voters. From the Wall Street Journal in early December:

Mr. Perry is making an aggressive pitch to unify the evangelical bloc, pouring his sizable financial war chest into TV ads that declare he is “not ashamed” to be a Christian, that criticize gays serving openly in the military, and that vow to end President Obama’s “war on religion.”

[...] Yet the flaw in this strategy is assuming that cultural conservatives have somehow missed the past three years of economic turmoil and Obama overreach, and intend to vote a religious line. What it misses is that social conservatives have seen a lot since 2008, and that this time they see the stakes as too high to take another Mike Huckabee flyer. They aren’t likely to be unified this time around.

By most estimates, evangelicals make up between 50% and 60% of the conservative primary electorate. Yet a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that some 70% of likely caucus-goers list the economy as their top issue; 14% listed social issues. Or how about this: A recent Public Policy Polling survey found more voters (42%) had “major concerns” with a candidate who supported an individual health mandate than they did (34%) a candidate who had cheated on a spouse.

The knee jerk analysis on evangelical voters revolves around Mr. Romney’s Mormonism, which matters to some, but it’s hardly that simple. Nothing is today, with the Democratic and Republican parties hemorrhaging members and politics on the grass roots level fracturing all monoliths.

Ralph Reed, yes the former mastermind that was taken down by his Abramoff and Tom Delay connections, is back and CNN’s rehabilitating him. From Reed today:

Here’s how the evangelical vote broke down: 32% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul, 13% each for Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry, 6% for Michele Bachmann and 1% for Jon Huntsman.

…So when commentators prognosticate about the “evangelical vote,” we might want to ask them, “which one?” For there are there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement…

Many social conservatives likely don’t believe a true conservative would ever be elected governor of Massachusetts.

It’s a good point and also why, regardless of the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney among the right, he remains the candidate Obama reelect is targeting.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }