John McCain and T. Boone Pickens Share A Racist Joke

Posted by on August 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm. 4 Comments :

In a meeting today in Aspen, John McCain met with oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens to discuss his plan to address U.S. dependence on foreign oil and focus more on alternative energies including wind and natural gas (in which Pickens is heavily invested).

Before they even sat down to talk, the subject of a recent study that predicted that white Americans will be in the minority by 2042 came up. Pickens found what he apparently thought was a silver lining in the report. He said to McCain…

“You and I won’t have to worry about that.”

The candidate and the audience chuckled at what the press described as a joke aimed at their advanced age. But that was not a joke about their age. It was an admission that they believe that such a demographic shift is something to “worry” about. They are saying that those of us who will be alive 34 years from now, and are white, should be worried. They are implying that they may be better off dead then to live in an America with a non-white majority.

What exactly are they afraid of? No one in the press corps bothered to ask. One intrepid reporter did ask McCain to comment on the anti-Obama book, “Obama Nation.” McCain ducked the question with a curious non sequitor: “Gotta keep your sense of humor.” Huh? An alert staffer intruded on this exchange and advised the reporter that, “we’re not doing that.” Straight talk? Racist talk? A typical day on the McCain campaign trail.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Swiftboater Jerome Corsi’s New Batch Of Lies About Obama

Posted by on August 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm. 2 Comments :

Obama FixationThere have not been too many authors more discredited than Jerome Corsi. His previous writings include the infamous “Unfit For Command” that made Swiftboating a verb to describe unscrupulous dishonesty. Corsi deserves that honor as he has also written books on debunked conspiracy theories that Bush is planning to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada (dismissed as nonsense even by conservatives like Michael Medved and John Hawkins of Human Events), and his notion that the supply of the world’s oil will never run out.

His latest smear project is “Obama Nation,” a book that he admits was written “to defeat Obama. I don’t want Obama to be in office,” Corsi told the New York Times. Nevertheless his publisher, right-wing harpy Mary Matalin’s Threshold Books, asserts that his book is not political but is a work of “Scholarship.” Uh huh…Then why was it so easy for Media Matters to uncover a plethora of inaccuracies, misstatements, and lies?

Now the book has risen to the top of the Times’ best sellers list, but even that achievement is not without controversy. The Times notes that:

“The book is being pushed along by a large volume of bulk sales, intense voter interest in Mr. Obama and a broad marketing campaign that has already included 100 author interviews with talk radio hosts across the country, like Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy, Mr. Corsi said on Tuesday.”

It is a common tactic amongst rightist authors and publishers to recruit conservative think tanks, and other sympathetic groups, to buy large quantities of their books in order to boost their sales statistics. The books are then either given away – or thrown away – it hardly matters because the goal was just to generate publicity by reporting big numbers.

Barack Obama, however, does not seem to be anxious to get Swiftboated the way John Kerry was. He has already responded to Corsi’s lie-ography (PDF) with a 41 page fact checking. The meticulously researched document cites more than 50 lies in Corsi’s book. Plus, it quotes numerous independent reviews that also fail to find any merit in the book, and it cites examples of Corsi’s racism and frequently offensive mode of communication.

Despite the manipulative methods that Corsi has employed to get attention, Obama’s people are correct to attack it head on. These sorts of smears must never be left alone in the public mind. They must be struck down with the truth and without hesitation.

Update: Sunday, 8/17/18, Fox News correspondent Liz Trotta (who once joked about assassinating Obama), appeared this morning to defend Corsi. She claimed that his book may have contained some errors early on, but as it progressed it was more accurate. She was, in effect, asserting that Corsi was the one being Swiftboated and claimed that his prior book on John Kerry was mostly true. She, and Fox, simply have no shame.


John McCain’s Fear Of The Internets

Posted by on August 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

Cable MonstersLast month John McCain said that Americans are tired of the Internet. It’s highly unlikely that he was actually speaking for all Americans, or even anything more than a small brood of Luddites. It is more likely that he himself is tired of the Internet, or perhaps just tired, period. He has never been particularly fond of it, even as he chaired the Senate committee responsible for regulating it.

Amanda Terkel has authored a pretty comprehensive review of McCain’s tech resume. Her article reveals a man who is both uncomfortable with technological progress and beholden to the big corporate interests who seek to dominate the industry. McCain’s pronouncements on the subject, like the one last month, are laughable. He has confessed that he is “an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get,” and that he “never felt the particular need to e-mail.”

Terkel points out that the United States has fallen behind most of the world with regard to broadband policy. Our failure to be competitive in this arena will cost us the loss of millions of potential new jobs. It will hamstring our children. And it will insure that we run with the back of the pack in opportunities for business growth.

McCain has led the way to the rear by opposing legislation that would keep the Internet open (Network Neutrality). Plus he has promoted the sort of deregulation that has permitted media companies to consolidate so extensively that there are now only a handful of giant players left. McCain advanced this anti-competitive agenda while claiming to be free of conflicts or personal motive. Unfortunately, Terkel proves that that isn’t the truth:

“In 1998 and 1999, McCain wrote at least 15 letters to the FCC, urging members to take action on issues that had potentially major consequences for his campaign donors. For example, McCain wrote two letters in April and May 1999, asking the commission to make a decision on a $62 billion pending merger between telephone companies Ameritech and SBC Communications. The merger went through later that year. A few weeks before the April letter, Richard Notebaert, the head of Ameritech, co-hosted a fundraiser for McCain. He took in approximately $50,000. Just before the May letter, SBC and Ameritech officials contributed or solicited about $120,000 in donations for McCain’s campaign.”

“The current campaign cycle is also shaping up to be lucrative. U.S. Telecom Association president and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr., Sprint CEO Daniel R. Hesse, and Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg have each raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain’s campaign. AT&T executive vice president for federal relations Timothy McKone has raised at least $500,000.”

Maverick McCainMcCain’s association with lobbyists is well documented, if not well reported by the media. He was embroiled in his own scandal some years ago surrounding the corrupt banker Charles Keating. Next week he is attending a fundraiser hosted by Ralph Reed, a prolific lobbyist and an associate of convicted scammer Jack Abramoff. And in this week of tabloid revelations about John Edwards and his mistress, it should be noted that McCain also had speculation swirling about his relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Unlike the bulldogging National Enquirer, the New York Times dropped the Iseman story after getting yapped at by angry Republicans. But the more salacious elements of the Iseman affair are not really that important. What is most relevant is that she is another lobbyist for closing off the Internet to everyone but her wealthy multinational clients, and that she was indisputably chummy with McCain. Curiously, she has since vanished from the face of earth. She has been so well hidden that even milk cartons don’t have a picture of her. Has the McCain camp shuttled her off to Dick Cheney’s fabled “Undisclosed Location?”

Terkel’s article, along with the other evidence cited here, should cause anyone who values the Internet to be suspicious of McCain’s plans. He is not merely ignorant, he is aggressively antagonistic toward an open, accessible, World Wide Web. He must not be given an authority over it.


Bush: Back On The Bottle?

Posted by on August 12, 2008 at 3:32 am. 45 Comments :

Bush DrunkThe national embarrassment that is our president once again raises its reddened face. In photographs from the Olympics in China, it appears that recovering souse, George W. Bush, is relapsing.

In one picture his face is flushed, his eyes droop, and his expression is dopey. In all fairness, that may be his normal expression. However, the bloody scrape on his arm suggests that he has recently taken a less than normal fall.

In the other picture, Bush appears to be having trouble remaining upright without considerable help. It takes three men to prop up the wobbly boozer-in-chief.

Don’t it make ya feel proud?

This is the man that John McCain’s 3rd term would seek to emulate if, Heaven forbid, he gets the chance. However, this is not the first evidence of Bush’s backsliding. First and foremost, that high bar of American journalism, the National Enquirer, wrote about it three years ago.

EOnline reported last year that Bush’s return to drinking drove Laura to move out of the White House and to a possible split-up. Other rumors had her house hunting in Dallas for a post-presidency home away from George.

Both the Globe and Examiner covered Laura’s “eruption” at her hubby’s imbibing.

Just last month Bush accused Wall Street of getting drunk and having a hangover. Perhaps they were binging together. We know how close they are.

This is a president who can’t stay upright on a bicycle and who nearly chokes to death on pretzels. Maybe we’ll get a better picture of the man when Oliver Stone’s movie “W” is released in a couple of months. Stone’s script reportedly has Bush Sr. telling his no-good progeny that…

“You never kept your word once…you’re only good for partying, chasing tail, driving drunk…You deeply disappoint me.”

He deeply disappoints us all. This is what America gets when they vote for the guy they’d most like to have a beer with.


Starve The Beast: Appetite For Distortion

Posted by on August 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm. 16 Comments :

Media Blindness

Almost exactly one year ago I published a comprehensive examination of the futility of appearances on Fox News by Democrats and progressives: Starve The Beast. The thrust of the article argued that…

“Every time one of our representatives appears on Fox, they are setting back our agenda. They are not just wasting a little time trying to confront the enemy in its lair. They are literally causing harm to the efforts of the rest of us who are fervently struggling to repair and improve our country.”

The case was supported by studies that showed that Fox News audiences supported Republicans by overwhelming margins and that they were significantly more likely to have misperceptions about current news events. I also provided evidence that the centerpiece in Rupert Murdoch’s empire was a far less ominous presence in the mediasphere than they liked to imagine themselves.

It’s all still true. Rasmussen conducted a new study that affirms the previous studies. Their survey shows that Fox News viewers are still a species apart from the rest of the television population.

When nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for John McCain, you have an audience that may be more accurately described as a cult (as I described it in The Cult Of Foxonality). And while viewers at both CNN and MSNBC express a solid two to one majority for Barack Obama, that is a far cry from the near unanimous, block mentality of Fox viewers. The fact that the CNN and MSNBC audience compositions agree with one another suggests that they may be a better reflection of the population as a whole. They certainly come much closer to public opinion polling on the presidential race. Another indication of the disparity between Fox and its competitors is that 43% of CNN viewers and 38% of MSNBC viewers have a favorable opinion of McCain. However, only 14% of Fox viewers have a favorable opinion of Obama.

This corroborating evidence of how decidedly unfriendly the Fox News audience is to Democrats ought to be enough to persuade them to stay away from the network. Unfortunately, the past few weeks has seen wayward souls like Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson lured into the Fox lair. To make matters worse, both Hillary Clinton and Obama have recently granted interviews to Fox flacks Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, respectively. Obviously more persuasion is required. So let’s go to the numbers – the Nielsen numbers.

In the first half of 2008, CNN and MSNBC both improved their ratings over the same period the year before by more than 50% in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Fox News squeaked through with a measly 4% gain. In the second quarter Fox actually sunk 2%. And Fox continues to draw the oldest audience in cable news. MSNBC beats Fox with about 35% more viewers in the 18-34 demo. So Fox’s audience is not only growing slower than its competitors, it is failing to attract the next generation of news viewers. The only reason for the size of the audience they presently have is that they have cornered the market for conservative couch jockeys who congregate at their cable water cooler. Hence their dramatic overweighting of McCainiacs. The rest of the news consuming audience is splintered throughout the dial in a manner that disguises the fact that they are in the majority. There are far more non-Fox viewers than Fox viewers, but they are dispersed over a half dozen channels or more. Conservatives are all gathering together, glassy-eyed in the Fox clubhouse.

Democrats and progressives need to be reminded that a network that is overtly hostile to their interests holds no attraction for them. There is no reason to grace their airwaves. There is no benefit to doing so. They will not change the minds of the Foxpods watching programs like Brit Hume’s Special Report or the O’Reilly Factor. Their appearances will only be used to humiliate them and then to lay claim to being “fair and balanced.” It simply makes no sense to ally with a organization that is working openly and vigorously for your defeat. Can it be any clearer that people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity are the enemy?

Starve The BeastAnd if it isn’t enough that Fox News is avowedly opposed to the goals of Democrats and progressives, then the fact that viewers are turning away from Fox while the market is growing should convince them of what the rest of the country has already decided – that Fox is not a news network, it is a tool for right-wing propaganda and disinformation. That’s why their audience share is shrinking. And that’s why we must not grant them the credibility our association implies. Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

This beast has a ravenous appetite and we should not be throwing it chum. Leave it to whither and parish and cease to threaten our land and well-being. We are better rid of it. Starve The Beast!


Hollywood’s Conservative Crybabies

Posted by on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 am. 25 Comments :

A couple of weeks ago the Washington Times published a story about beleaguered conservatives in the entertainment industry. Just the fact that the story appeared in the Washington Times would normally be enough reason to laugh it off, but the article gets even funnier than one might imagine. It begins:

“A group of politically conservative and centrist Hollywood figures organized by actor Gary Sinise and others has been meeting quietly in restaurants and private homes, forming a loose-knit network of entertainers who share common beliefs like supporting U.S. troops and traditional American values […] The group, whose members call themselves “Friends of Abe” after Abraham Lincoln [are they sure it’s not Vigoda?], was organized as an underground movement because of fears that prominent industry titans with outspoken liberal views would retaliate, said participants. They often were reluctant to name members of the group in interviews for fear it would hurt their careers.”

To the extent that this shadowy conclave of rebels was willing to shed their reluctance to name names (behavior with which conservatives should be familiar), they thoroughly undermined their stated mission. Those courageous enough to step forward include some of Hollywood’s biggest stars:

  • Gary Sinise
  • Pat Boone
  • Jon Voight
  • Kelsey Grammer
  • Lionel Chetwynd

And this list doesn’t include big conservative names that have not been associated with Friends of Abe:

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Bruce Willis
  • Tom Selleck
  • Patricia Heaton
  • Adam Sandler
  • Mel Gibson
  • Clint Eastwood
  • Chuck Norris

Conservatives are desperately trying to carve a place for themselves in a Hollywood they believe does not want them. There have been at least three articles in the Washington Times on the subject. It has also been taken up by the Los Angeles Times, the National Review, and Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard did a cover story on it.

But can they really be serious about alleging discrimination, and fear of retaliation when, by their own accounts, they are enjoying stupendous success and popularity? Of course they can. Fealty to the truth or reality has never stopped a conservative before. It’s what the Bush administration relies on whenever they describe programs like “Clear Skies,” “Healthy Forests,” or “iraqi Freedom.” It’s what allows John McCain to complain that the media is unfair to him, or that Barack Obama is a flip-flopper. It is a strategy wherein you assert the polar opposite of what you actually mean – what actually is. This round of bitching is emblematic of right-wing methodology in politics.

It is also ironic that these efforts to exalt celebrity should bubble up at a time when the McCain campaign is mocking celebrity with juvenile ads about Britney Spears.

So it should surprise no one that conservatives would assert that, if they were to disclose their views in Hollywood, they would never be successful, and then trot out a bevy of successful Hollywood conservatives to make their case. This is the way they work, and they pray that the American people are stupid enough to fall for it. I think that’s what they really mean by a “Faith-based Initiative.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Gas Station TV Tanks Obama Ad

Posted by on August 6, 2008 at 5:17 pm. NO Comments :

Gas Station TV operates video terminals placed on gas pumps that display news, weather, and, of course, commercials. However, Barack Obama produced a commercial for the network that discussed his energy policy and advocated conservation. That ad was rejected by GSTV on the grounds that they avoid political messages. But the Obama campaign said that company gave a different reason for turning them down: It was too damaging to the oil industry.

On one hand, it seems reasonable that service stations might not want to host advertising that attempts to persuade customers to purchase less of their products. On the other hand, consumers are already making that decision on their own. With record gas prices they are cutting back on unnecessary travel and are choosing more fuel efficient vehicles.

A bigger picture analysis, however, leads a to an entirely different conclusion. Obama’s energy program includes a $1,000.00 rebate for consumers. That’s money that might be spent on gas. Additionally, Obama is selling his program as a means to eventually lower gas prices. With lower prices come higher consumption. So it could be argued that Obama’s ad will actually benefit the service stations where it would air.

Unfortunately, the short term thinking on the part of the oil industry is going to ignore these arguments and insure that these common sense messages will be censored from this advertising venue. It’s too bad, but it’s not much of a surprise.


The Waterboard Thrill Ride

Posted by on August 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm. 4 Comments :

Late last month artist Steve Powers installed a new amusement at New York’s Coney Island – the Waterboard Thrill Ride:


Photo: Tom Giebel (atomische.com)

This will exhibit, which features a scene of an animatronic torturer and victim, will continue through the summer. Feeding a dollar through the slot in the front, will set the scene, viewed through jail bars, in motion.

Powers: “It’s about time that this uniquely American ritual of intense water horror, a practice long reserved for New England witches and Al-Qaida brass, was made available to the people. This project will give some everyday New Yorkers the chance to experience – for a few brief, bone-chilling seconds – all the thrills of being a prisoner under interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. And the installation is fun for the whole family.”

Once again, an artist has found the most succinct and visceral way to express the horror of what our country is doing in our names. Since our leaders are unable to concede that this barbaric practice is torture, Powers has found another description that illustrates the obscenity of pretending that a universally recognized method of torture is really just “enhanced interrogation.” How can it be bad if it’s enhanced?

This exhibit is stirring some controversy, as do most exhibits with profound social messages. Last year Steve Kurtz was arrested and harassed for expressing himself. In 2006 Dread Scott’s show was ordered shut down even though it did nothing that that George Bush hasn’t done. If nothing else, these episodes prove that artists are still the most dangerous members of society.


Media Diagnosed With ADD

Posted by on August 6, 2008 at 10:14 am. NO Comments :

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) has confirmed what many observers have already suspected. The media suffers from a severe case of Attention Distortion Disorder.

“For the first time since this general election campaign began in early June, Republican John McCain attracted virtually as much media attention as his Democratic rival last week.”

Barack Obama’s tour of the Middle East and Europe generated a slew of press reports detailing the trip and documenting the speeches and meetings with foreign leaders. This was interpreted by pundits as an excess abundance of attention paid to the Democratic candidate at the expense of John McCain. What this analysis leaves out (as usual) is any context that incorporates the content of the coverage, much of which focused on criticisms that Obama was arrogant, presumptuous, and “too presidential.”

Nevertheless, the McCain camp whined that they were being slighted and responded by releasing a series of ads that addressed serious issues like Paris Hilton, Moses, and the alleged love affair the media has for Obama. Actually, the McCain campaign didn’t really release the ads so much as they announced their existence and then let the media air them repeatedly for free. Whatever the method, the strategy appears to have had some success. The PEJ’s study shows that McCain’s press time is now equivalent to Obama’s. And all he had to do was accuse the media of being infatuated with his opponent.

For McCain to suggest that Obama is the recipient of undue positive coverage in the press is laughable. McCain himself once described the media as his base. He jokes with them on his campaign plane and invites them to BBQs at his Arizona villa. He relies on the overwhelmingly complimentary image he enjoys, including the utterly false portrayal of him as a maverick.

What this teaches journalism observers is that if you bash the media for not paying attention to you, you can get them to pay attention to you. You don’t have to provide any substance or even demonstrate that the content of the reporting was unfair. Just complain about the distribution of minutes and let the guilty consciences of the press take effect. Hillary Clinton’s campaign did the same thing during the primaries with the same result.

Further evidence of the success of this strategy can be seen in the allocation of airtime on campaign coverage. The PEJ summarizes the impact of the media focus on advertising by noting that 10% of the “newshole” was devoted to campaign ads. But it doesn’t stop there:

“Advertising was the second-biggest campaign story line last week, filling 10% of the campaign newshole. And the ripple effects were felt throughout the week. The ad generated another narrative – whether McCain campaign was too negative – that filled 6% of the newshole. The tone of the campaign, and the new McCain ad, then triggered a third major story line. When Obama accused Republicans of trying to frighten Americans because he ‘doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills,’ the McCain team responded by accusing Obama of playing the ‘race card.’ And that controversy, at 15%, became the biggest campaign narrative of all.”

In total, campaign advertising, directly or indirectly, drove 31% of the media coverage. The bulk of that coverage was centered on McCain or McCain’s criticisms of Obama. At least three McCain ads were replayed ad nauseum, but at most one Obama ad was given any analysis at all.

Since when was it the duty of the press to provide more coverage of candidate-produced commercials than to the actual issues around which campaigns revolve? The networks are making million dollar contributions to candidates when they broadcast their ads for free. Not to mention they are foregoing revenue that they might have earned had they required the candidates to actually pay for the ad time. What’s their incentive for this poor business judgment? Does it represent a political preference on the part of the media? Just take a look at the preponderance of McCain’s free media as compared to Obama’s and I think the answer is clear.

It is McCain with whom the media is in love. And they are putting their money where their heart is.