And liberals can find a home in neither. Obviously not in the Republican party. But not really in the Democratic party either... Yes, there are liberals in the Democratic party, and wonderful ones, at that - Russ Feingold, Anthony Weiner, Patrick Leahy, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Marcy Kaptur, Barney Frank... But for a multitude of reasons, Democratic party leaders feel constant pressure to to move rightward. Even with a liberal, Nancy Pelosi, in charge of the House of Representatives.
The health care bill and where it currently stands is a case in point. Even though a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress wanted a public option - or at least Medicare's expansion as an alternative - as of the last week the current bill contains neither. Why? Because of a few conservative Democratic senators. (Republican senators don't even bother.) In fact, only one senator - Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Dems, and so gets a committee chair - is responsible for the Medicare option being dropped. And this, after he extolled the virtues of just such a plan three months ago. He even says he dropped it because he saw how happy it made liberals! Great guy, that one.
And that's just one person. One conservative Democrat. After concession upon concesssion was made to the handful of Conservadems to begin with. Thus, essentially, giving those half dozen or so people all the power in the party.
Now that both options have been dropped, liberals like myself are crying foul, let alone over Medicare being dropped solely due to Lieberman's flip-flop. (And this, after defecting from the Democratic party, stumping for McCain for president and criticizing candidate Obama at the Republican convention.) Howard Dean - the man behind our expanded congressional majorities but ignored by the White House once Obama moved in - has called the bill a bailout for insurance companies and recommended a move toward reconciliation (majority rule) instead.
So the White House and some Democratic senators came out swinging - against Dean. Not against Lieberman. Not against Republican party members in Congress. Obame and company have chosen to come out swinging - not for the first time - against Dean, and the liberals he represents. Who have already given concession after concession to begin with.
Long story short: liberals are taken for granted in the Democratic party. And have been for decades now. We don't have a party. And the expectation from the party at large has been that we have nowhere else to turn, so we'll continue to accept being ignored, even abused.
It's BS! I don't have a viable political party. A party that, as Bill Maher often points out, does not embrace progressive - but also widely held positions - on a host of issues. Those include legalization of marijuana, universal health care, a scaled back war budget, strong anti-trust legislation, campaign finance reform, gun control legislation and much more. I'm tired of not belonging to a party that respects me. Not only that, I'm tired of a party that too often runs rightward, embracing the positions of the opposition. Bill Clinton ruled as a Republican essentially, and they still tarred and feathered him for it. Obama's ramping up the war in Afghanistan, backed off banking regulatory reform, allowed the public option to die, closed off to the possibility of prosecuting members of the Bush administration for possible crimes and so on.
I want a party with real progressive values. I want a party that won't make me feel bad for what I believe. I want a party that excites and inspires people. That isn't a shell of its former self. The Democratic party is none of that.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Jon Stewart Gets Laughs Over the Joke the Real News Media Has Become
Kudos to Jon Stewart for simply being his usual smart, insightful self. Apparently, there are legions of young people getting their news from "The Daily Show." Which I admittedly found a little odd - they couldn't at least supplement it with browsing The Huffington Post or New York Times? Still though, it shows what a chord Stewart is striking with the X and Y generations these days.
What it says terrible things about are the network and cable news networks. They are unwatchable, in most cases. They gloss over or ignore altogether the finer details of hard-hitting news stories and spend much of their time instead on sports, weather, the weekly box office race and your standard Hollywood gossip.
And then as the under-appreciated Ralph Nader points out about local news formats (a whole other beast), viewers are endlessly subjected to the phony, cringe-inducing banter of the anchors we're presumably supposed to find charming in their "spontaneity." Every news show does it, and for starters it's not even remotely possible that every group of anchors out there gets along gangbusters as they'd like us to believe. But even if it was in every case genuine, from Tallahassee to Spokane, it's yet more time taken away from actual news. Which is the point of "news" programs, is it not?
Finally, take out one third of total viewing time for ads, too many of which are devoted to erection pills (which is all that seem to play on Olbermann), and you're left with even less information to glean.
Sad to say, but TV news is a joke now. CNN, as a prime example, just seems to get worse with time. Whenever I'm caught in its evil web, while channel-surfing or in an airport lobby, I'm amazed at how much more dumbed down and entertainment-driven it's become since the last time I saw it.
I assume CNN thinks making their format "pop" more will bring in additional twenty-somethings. But the fatal flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that young people are like monkeys, attracted to bright, shiny graphics, Twitter mentions and Britney coverage. But America's 20- and 30-somethings are instead drawn to ingenuity, to that which rings true - a rarity on television.
Which brings us full circle to "The Daily Show." Stewart doesn't bullshit us. And he's really, really smart. Which is what Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson, George Snuffaluppaguss and all the other white anchors (plus Katie) should be for their news shows to be relevant. Perhaps those individuals are equally as clever and incisive as Stewart (who, admittedly is also white), but if it's the case they're not exactly proving themselves on camera.
Alas... "What's Wrong With TV News " is a huge topic I can't possibly winnow my rambling thoughts about into one blog post, so I'll leave it there for now.
But it bears repeating that TV news has become a farce. Thank God we have Jon - and not just for his jokes.
What it says terrible things about are the network and cable news networks. They are unwatchable, in most cases. They gloss over or ignore altogether the finer details of hard-hitting news stories and spend much of their time instead on sports, weather, the weekly box office race and your standard Hollywood gossip.
And then as the under-appreciated Ralph Nader points out about local news formats (a whole other beast), viewers are endlessly subjected to the phony, cringe-inducing banter of the anchors we're presumably supposed to find charming in their "spontaneity." Every news show does it, and for starters it's not even remotely possible that every group of anchors out there gets along gangbusters as they'd like us to believe. But even if it was in every case genuine, from Tallahassee to Spokane, it's yet more time taken away from actual news. Which is the point of "news" programs, is it not?
Finally, take out one third of total viewing time for ads, too many of which are devoted to erection pills (which is all that seem to play on Olbermann), and you're left with even less information to glean.
Sad to say, but TV news is a joke now. CNN, as a prime example, just seems to get worse with time. Whenever I'm caught in its evil web, while channel-surfing or in an airport lobby, I'm amazed at how much more dumbed down and entertainment-driven it's become since the last time I saw it.
I assume CNN thinks making their format "pop" more will bring in additional twenty-somethings. But the fatal flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that young people are like monkeys, attracted to bright, shiny graphics, Twitter mentions and Britney coverage. But America's 20- and 30-somethings are instead drawn to ingenuity, to that which rings true - a rarity on television.
Which brings us full circle to "The Daily Show." Stewart doesn't bullshit us. And he's really, really smart. Which is what Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson, George Snuffaluppaguss and all the other white anchors (plus Katie) should be for their news shows to be relevant. Perhaps those individuals are equally as clever and incisive as Stewart (who, admittedly is also white), but if it's the case they're not exactly proving themselves on camera.
Alas... "What's Wrong With TV News " is a huge topic I can't possibly winnow my rambling thoughts about into one blog post, so I'll leave it there for now.
But it bears repeating that TV news has become a farce. Thank God we have Jon - and not just for his jokes.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Chris Matthews Should Apologize for Cheerleading the Iraq Invasion
I know plenty of liberals who love the guy. There's no question that he's likable. And he's knowledgeable of the ways of Washington - I'm not arguing that.
But every time I hear Chris Matthews go off on what a mistake the Iraq War is, I can't help but wonder where all this gusto, outrage and skepticism was, back when it mattered? One line I'll always remember is his gung ho declaration that "We're all neo-cons now!" It was as Bush & Co. plowed headlong into this needless war. This is around the time he referred to Bush as "Lincolnesque." Anyway, we could have used you then, Chris. Perhaps you could have even have helped prevent the war, for all we know.
His crowing now over what a colossal foreign relations blunder Iraq's turned out to be is maddening to listen to and a fairly easy position to take now that anti-war voices are no longer the minority. For me personally, the only way Matthews' now perfectly safe display of outrage matters is if he acknowledges his unwillingness to ask the hard questions back when the case for war was still being made by the Bush administration.
But every time I hear Chris Matthews go off on what a mistake the Iraq War is, I can't help but wonder where all this gusto, outrage and skepticism was, back when it mattered? One line I'll always remember is his gung ho declaration that "We're all neo-cons now!" It was as Bush & Co. plowed headlong into this needless war. This is around the time he referred to Bush as "Lincolnesque." Anyway, we could have used you then, Chris. Perhaps you could have even have helped prevent the war, for all we know.
His crowing now over what a colossal foreign relations blunder Iraq's turned out to be is maddening to listen to and a fairly easy position to take now that anti-war voices are no longer the minority. For me personally, the only way Matthews' now perfectly safe display of outrage matters is if he acknowledges his unwillingness to ask the hard questions back when the case for war was still being made by the Bush administration.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Beware Of The Right-Wing Smear Machine... Stay Frosty, Guys
This morning's NY Times article about Newt Gingrich and company's disillusionment over President-Elect Barack Obama's Teflon image so far made for an exciting read. The article pointed out that Republicans' endless tirades against Obama's non-existent ties to the Blago scandal have so far gone up in smoke and that John McCain's defense of Obama didn't help matters. The article also said that with the nation's economy in dire straits, Americans are rejecting partisan attacks and want - "logically," per Mr. Gingrich - for Obama to succeed in getting the country back on track.
Music to my ears...
But I want to make clear that, despite the RNC's, Fox News' and daytime radio's lack of results, this doesn't mean they're giving up the ghost. Nor do they ever plan to soon. The endless whisper campaign - or should I say shriek? - from the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world continue unabated. And no matter how centrist the people President-Elect Obama appoints or adept he may be at evading ideological labels, the partisan attacks, and the lies from the extreme Right that Americans have grown accustomed to, will continue.
Bill Clinton triangulated with the Republican party over welfare reform, the crime bill, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA and Republican defense secretary, to name a handful of examples. But how far did that get him with the opposition? Had he pursued a purely liberal agenda during his eight years in office it's arguable he would not have suffered a worse fate in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress. Gingrich, Dick Armey and their cohorts did everything in their power to destroy the man, finally culminating in his impeachment over a sex scandal.
My point is this: The incoming Obama administration cannot be lulled into complacency over the Right's blunted criticism's so far. And while there are many decent Republicans out there who are putting country first, there will always be individuals and organizations on the Right who are hell-bent to destroy any Democrat inhabiting the White House.
Obama cannot allow Republicans, at any point, to define his agenda in the public's mind. Nor should he believe (and I'm not claiming he is yet) that any overtures to the Right will quiet their concerns.
I can't help but wonder whether there's any way Democrats can counteract the high volume of the ultra-conservative message's being blared over the airwaves. Isn't Fox News, like any of the legitimate news networks, legally obligated to offer objective analysis in their programming? (And not in name only, i.e. "Fair and Balanced.") The air waves are, after all, owned by the public and leased out free of charge to media companies with the proviso that their work serve a public purpose. And it's the FCC's responsibility to ensure the networks live up to that promise. No one should be surprised that during the Bush years the FCC steered clear of regulating Fox and daytime radio, but with an incoming Democratic White House and Congress it's high time the FCC fully did its job.
I'll be waiting - with bated breath! - for the Federal Communications Commission to finally jump back into action in the new year. "Fair and Balanced," here we come.
Music to my ears...
But I want to make clear that, despite the RNC's, Fox News' and daytime radio's lack of results, this doesn't mean they're giving up the ghost. Nor do they ever plan to soon. The endless whisper campaign - or should I say shriek? - from the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world continue unabated. And no matter how centrist the people President-Elect Obama appoints or adept he may be at evading ideological labels, the partisan attacks, and the lies from the extreme Right that Americans have grown accustomed to, will continue.
Bill Clinton triangulated with the Republican party over welfare reform, the crime bill, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA and Republican defense secretary, to name a handful of examples. But how far did that get him with the opposition? Had he pursued a purely liberal agenda during his eight years in office it's arguable he would not have suffered a worse fate in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress. Gingrich, Dick Armey and their cohorts did everything in their power to destroy the man, finally culminating in his impeachment over a sex scandal.
My point is this: The incoming Obama administration cannot be lulled into complacency over the Right's blunted criticism's so far. And while there are many decent Republicans out there who are putting country first, there will always be individuals and organizations on the Right who are hell-bent to destroy any Democrat inhabiting the White House.
Obama cannot allow Republicans, at any point, to define his agenda in the public's mind. Nor should he believe (and I'm not claiming he is yet) that any overtures to the Right will quiet their concerns.
I can't help but wonder whether there's any way Democrats can counteract the high volume of the ultra-conservative message's being blared over the airwaves. Isn't Fox News, like any of the legitimate news networks, legally obligated to offer objective analysis in their programming? (And not in name only, i.e. "Fair and Balanced.") The air waves are, after all, owned by the public and leased out free of charge to media companies with the proviso that their work serve a public purpose. And it's the FCC's responsibility to ensure the networks live up to that promise. No one should be surprised that during the Bush years the FCC steered clear of regulating Fox and daytime radio, but with an incoming Democratic White House and Congress it's high time the FCC fully did its job.
I'll be waiting - with bated breath! - for the Federal Communications Commission to finally jump back into action in the new year. "Fair and Balanced," here we come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)