Racism is on full display on NPR and at least CBS Radio News. Throughout Dubya’s eight years every news program referred to him as President Bush. With Barack Obama (and you can check the audio archives) he was referred to as “Obama” in every news story that I heard during his eight years in office. I bet he’ll still be referred to as “Obama” instead of “Former President Obama”. Never or hardly ever “President Obama”. And now Trump has only been in the White House for 4 days and in every news story he’s either “Donald Trump” or “President Trump”. Yes, racism is alive and all too well in the corporate news media.
So, the corporate media is going ga-ga over Marco Rubio’s candidacy based on last night’s “debate” performance. As if regurgitating carefully-scripted and rehearsed one-liners and comments makes one fit to be president. Ted Cruz is in the #2 spot based on this one performance, too.
In the real world both are political jokes, of course, but in Corporate Media World they’re suddenly they’re the new favorites over Donald Trump and Ben Carson. That’s based on ONE performance. But to the Washington Post’s credit, it does question whether these latest moles will be able to keep their heads above ground when the voters whack with their ballot mallets next year.
But the GOP presidential clown car has always been more like a game of whack-a-mole,hasn’t it? One head rises, is knocked down, another takes its place until it too is knocked down, etc.
Just goes to show how painfully low the presidential candidate bar is for the GOP and its partisan propagandists in Corporate Media World, NPR included. They love the men wearing the big cowboy hats but totally lacking in cattle.
Rassmussen Reports just released one of its famously pro-Republican polls
showing a virtual tie in the Colorado U.S. Senate Race between Democratic incumbent Mark Udall and Republican challenger Corey Gardner and, coincidentally (?), NPR News runs a tory primarily to make Republican challenger Corey Gardner a national name in pursuit of the NPR News campaign to convince the American voter that this is the year of the Republicans.
After all, NPR trashes Obamacare at least weekly, and now almost daily (and several times daily) mentioning Rand Paul’s name and frequently accompanying it with a sound bite. There are 45 Republicans in the U.S. Senate but from NPR News you’d think that Paul is the only saying or thinking anything important because he’s about the only one in heavy radio rotation. So Ted Cruz is now SO last year’s chopped liver for wrapping himself around and making himself the voice and voice of the GOP/Tea Party’s federal government shutdown. And Marco Rubio? He’s got the charisma of any fresh-faced little boy who looks like he’s wearing his father’s U.S. Senator’s clothes.
It’s been decided somewhere that Rand Paul needs to be pushed into the psyche of the American public and as frequently as possible. For what purpose, I don’t know—yet. He’s not up for reelection until 2016 and two years from how he’s got as much chance of getting the Republican nomination for president as he has getting elected president this year. To show how little chance the guy has to send out bids on a new design for the Oval Office rug, his GOP buddies in the Kentucky state senate are pushing a bill that would allow him to be on the 2016 state ballot as candidate for both president and reelection to the US Senate (much like Wisconsin state law enabled Paul Ryan to lose his VP bid and still keep his day job in Congress in 2012). The state House of Representatives doesn’t like that idea so much and will most likely shoot it down if it passes the state senate.
It’s perfectly plausible that Paul has been positioned to be the once and future Head Mad Hatter of the Tea Party at a time when the Karl Roves of the GOP are attempting to separate and isolate it from the mainstream party because frankly, my dear, most Republican voters don’t give a damn about the Tea Party (except when it shuts down the federal government and then the word “damn” is heard a lot preceding the words “tea party”) except in the smallest and poorest Southern states with the highest numbers of uneducated people in America. Rove once had pull in the GOP until his meal ticket ran out of presidential terms and he had to settle for a new career as PAC Man. The meal ticket’s brother, Jeb, is undoubtedly planned by Rove to be his entrée to eight more years of White House entrées in 2016.
So, with Jeb in the top ticket slot, who would be the chosen one to slide into the number two spot? Hmmm, the name is on the tip of my psyche…Rand Paul. It now all makes sense. In front of closed doors guys like Rove decry how the Tea Party is destroying the GOP. But behind closed doors perhaps Paul’s name was bandied about as a sure way to bring the Tea Party—and its voter base—back into the fold and under control of the mainstream Republican Party. The GOPowers-that-be may be willing to risk a Rand Paul presidency if it gets them a Jeb Bush presidency first.
So in the pursuit of that end, the orders went out to the subsidiary media outlets like Fox, CNN and NPR to put Rand Paul in heavy rotation and to keep his erstwhile rivals out of the limelight. Too many choices make tea partiers nervous. They like to keep things simple, you know.
Just when I thought it was safe to be a Democrat again. Sen. John Warner (D-VA) goes and shoots himself, President Obama, and the Democratic Party in all their feet.
It was at the end of an interview on last night’s “All Things Considered” on NPR . Over the course of the 5-minute interview he basically said things we Democrats want to hear, but for some reason he repeated the phrase “in uncharted territory” three times. Maybe he thinks it’ll be the wild new catchphrase sweeping the nation. But anyway, just when he was almost home free, when he could see the goalposts standing there free and open before him, he drops the ball and this bomb:
“…And then, yes, Democrats will have to give on entitlement reform, Republicans are going to have to give on revenues to tax reform…”
This is the NUMBER ONE reason why many liberals are about to give up on a Democratic Party controlled by corporatists like John Warner. Obama floated the same junk on entitlements reform during the Republican-manufactured budget crisis that gave us the laughably inept and doomed Super Committee. It was made clear in Liberal article after article and interview after interview that Social Security and Medicare benefits are NOT entitlements. One can argue that SSI and Medicaid are but with those programs the problems are not with the recipients at all. The waste in Medicaid would be on the provider and prescription medicine costs side. But guys like Warner, who at least twice flaunted his years of business experience, insist on pushing the “everyone has to tighten their belts” mantra. Everyone except for members of Congress who mandate that belts be tightened while loosening theirs.
So, with his vast years of business experience where Warner probably staffed out giving his employees the bad news that belt tightening lost them their jobs so his could remain loose and profitable. You can’t run social services like you do a business. So, Social Security recipients getting an annual COLA (sometimes) is still too costly for him? Still pushing the Chained-CPI, are we? Giving Medicare recipients an affordable fee schedule will throw the program into bankruptcy? And again—THESE ARE NOT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS—THEY’RE EARNED BENEFITS.
I’m too cynical and realistic to believe that by “reform” Warner had in mind raising or altogether removing the FICA tax ceiling. And while he’s at it, about eliminating entirely the Republican-manufactured Medicare Part D, which would reform both the donut hole and prohibition against the government negotiating drug prices out of existence.
Warner’s words feel me with free that once again the Democrats will compromise with the Republicans over both the budget and the debt ceiling over the backs of the elderly, the sick, and the poor. The corporatist Democrats may have kept this bargaining chip fish on ice but it still stinks.
So, Juror B37 really saw this trial as an opportunity to cash in on Trayvon Martin’s murder and the subsequent media circus laughingly called a “trial”. Little tell-tale remarks clearly show her bias towards George Zimmerman: “…I think his [Zimmerman’s] heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.” “I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there.” In fact, she refers to Zimmerman twice as “George” if you listen to her comments, although she it seems to be in her personality to refer to people she doesn’t know by their first names if you listen to her comments.
And from her comments you get the clear impression that this a well-to-do elitist white property owner who would welcome Zimmerman as a neighbor if “he didn’t go too far”—like killing an innocent male black teen on his way back to his dad’s girlfriend’s condo where he was visiting? She believes that although Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of his car, she clearly believes his story that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin with no other evidence than Zimmerman’s testimony, because I think she believes this is what black men do when they’re being followed. She’s convinced it was Zimmerman’s voice on the 911 tape calling for help, because why would Trayvon be calling for help just because he’s locked in a death struggle with a scary dude who’s been stalking him for unknown reasons?
She also amply proves that, as I’ve always suspected, when a judge orders a panel to disregard certain testimony in court, at least some jurors ignore that order. She says she was influenced by the important testimony from Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino that he had found Zimmerman to be “truthful”, a remark that the judge ordered the panel to disregard. Juror B37 claims she based her decision on that testimony, which I think would and should invalidate the verdict and call for a re-trial—IF there were any justice in Florida.
She also condescendingly describes Trayvon’s friend, Rachel Jantel, “not credible” and felt sorry for her because Jantel seemed “to feel inadequate because of her poor education and communication skills” (as described in a NPR report). Juror B37 would have us believe that she is so intuitive and insightful that she can read into the minds of both George Zimmerman and Rachel Jantel and thoroughly know their characters. What a white elitist snob she is.
One of her most telling comments which clearly shows why she lives in Florida: “I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think everyone has a right to carry a gun.” You can bet this woman is a Republican who supports the Stand Your Ground law. The juror admits both she and her husband had concealed weapon permits but she let hers lapse.
The most telling comment of all was that she believed Zimmerman was not guilty from the start. And yet the prosecution allowed this person to sit on the jury which was assigned to judge Zimmerman impartially and on the facts. It was a setup from the beginning by the Florida legal system which doesn’t recognize that black citizens deserve justice, too. At least the proposed book deal that she hoped to use to capitalize on her verdict has been cancelled. I guess there is still some justice in Florida after all.
As I was upset by the black jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson of a double murder, I find no difference between that panel and this white one that acquitted Zimmerman of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It serves to prove that miscarriage of justice in this country remains color blind.
The story linked to above could be a prime example of a David Koch-funded NPR “news” story which means that NPR reporter Julie Rovner could be regarded as a Koch employee. Koch has heavily funded PBS and until recently sat on the boards of WNET New York and WBGH Boston so it can be assumed that he and/or brother Charles have also put a few hefty pay packets into the coffers of NPR. Read here about David Koch and PBS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/21/1210748/-Did-David-Koch-Kill-Critical-PBS-Documentary
And more on this from Jane Meyer with The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
This NPR story reeks of right wing propaganda, with Rovner even going so far as to use a sound bite from Paul Ryan and ONLY Paul Ryan to support its contention that Obamacare is soundly and roundly hated by the American public. But then comes in the false equivalency between it and Medicare Part D, the Republican legislation that prohibited government bargaining with Big Pharma over prescription medicine prices and threw countless numbers of seniors into the “donut hole” along with a huge chunk of their disposable income, forcing them to pay out of pocket for their meds.
This apparently Koch-funded story claims that Obamacare is just as unfavored now as Medicare Part D was in 2005. But Rovner re-writes history when she claims it was partisan Democratic politicking and not the egregious Republican kickback to Big Pharma and the slap in the life savings to seniors on Medicare now being required to pay for all their meds themselves that was the source of contention and disfavor. She further skews the story by using the memory of George W. Bush H&HS Secretary Mike Leavitt to spin the story to make it appear that the opposition was just due to partisan politics. Not ONE Democrat is interviewed for this story to shed some truth on it. Here is Leavitt’s big Republican spin comment: “’There is always a political backdrop to the implementation of a controversial law,’ said Leavitt in an interview. ‘With Part D, clearly the Democrats did not believe this would succeed, and I think in their heart didn’t want it to succeed. I suspect the inverse is true in the context of this [Affordable Care Act] law.’” Once a Bushie always a Bushie.
The only reason why Medicare Part D has never been repealed is because the Republicans have remained in control of Congress from that time until now except for a small window of time in 2009 when the Democrats couldn’t get their act together to get it wiped off the books.
Rovner offers not one positive analysis of Obamacare, but she is just toeing the Koch/Fox/Republican Party line because NPR has been broadcasting Obamacare-bashing story after Obamacare-bashing story for weeks. I’m not a fan of Obamacare only because it was just a tepid toe in the water of health insurance reform. But I stand with everyone who supports it by saying that Obamacare is a lot better than what we had before and is helping to bring health insurance to 50 million previously uninsured or uninsurable people.
It is truly a shame that publicly-funded NPR is a sham when it comes to news reporting. And it raises the question that if NPR is the deceptive and false in its reporting of domestic issues, how are we to believe it when it comes to the reporting of international news stories? For more on the purchase of PBS by at least one Koch brother (David) read Thom Hartmann’s excellent article: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16538-the-corporate-dictatorship-of-pbs-and-npr
Another word for corporate dictatorship is fascism.
Once again monitoring NPR and still confirming they are just as anti-Obama/Democrat, pro-Republican as Fox, CBS Radio, or ABC Radio News. They have been framing their “fiscal cliff” reporting as the problem we have here is a lack of respect between the two political parties. If only one of them would be the grown up in the room and negotiate in good faith and be willing to compromise like the parties did in the old days, this would be settled quickly.
NPR loves going into how all the spending cuts are going to hurt us all, but they give no context or history as to how this whole thing came about, not even when they bring their so-called analyst Cokie Roberts–one of the biggest hacks with a most undeserved reputation–to talk about it. No one brings up that the Republicans brought this all about with the acquiescence of the Democrats last year. In return for voting to raise the debt ceiling the Republicans demanded spending cuts in “entitlement” programs while the Democrats hang tough for defense spending cuts. The idea was that if budget and tax reform talks ever got stalemated these spending cuts would kick in. Other middle class staples like the payroll tax holiday would end as well. These changes were considered so draconian that no Congress in its right mind–meaning THESE guys–would ever allow these spending cuts to tax place. Obama dutifully signed this legislation–which also brought you the dead-on-arrival Super Committee–probably knowing all the time the Republicans would take us over that very cliff the following year.
But NPR insists on giving its listeners none of this context. They hold their reporting to “oh some terrible things are about to happen if Congress doesn’t start acting its age”, again attempting to create a false equivalency between the two sides. There is not one mention that the Democrats have put forth a serious plan with specific measures to increase revenue by raising taxes on the top 2%, but they do report Republicans insist on closing unspecified tax loopholes, which NPR then claims would raise more revenue than the tax increases, which really aren’t tax increases so much as ending the George W. Bush tax cuts. They also insist on “entitlements reform” although it’s been proven Social Security adds not dollar one to the deficit and Obamacare has already mandated Medicare provider payment reforms. If the Republicans would agree to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices—which their Medicare Part D prohibits—that alone would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years. To lend themselves credibility, NPR quoted talking heads from two economic policy think tanks without telling us anything about these think tanks—such as if they were right or left wing or middle oriented, or if they were sponsored surrogates for the Koch Brothers or George Soros or the like. Or they interview Tom Wilson, president and CEO of Allstate Insurance—universally regarded as the worst insurance company in the country—to comment on the Congressional budget impasse. His astute observation? Both parties lack respect for each other and we still need entitlements reform. He also admitted that after we go over the fiscal cliff no one in the insurance industry will lose their jobs because profits are still up. That should come as no surprise to any Allstate policy holder who has filed a claim and tried to collect what they were promised while Wilson pocketed a 20% pay increase in 2011, raising his salary and compensation and bonuses to $11.2 million.
They ended their fiscal cliff story today with Obama’s scheduled visit to Detroit and that “some Republicans say” Obama is still acting like he’s on the campaign trail. Of course NPR didn’t add that Detroit is expected to go broke by the end of the month, which might kick in Republican Governor Rick Snyder’s Emergency Manager law where he takes over the governing of a city through a hand-picked surrogate. NPR also failed to add that Michigan Republicans have passed legislation that Snyder is about to sign into law that will kill the union movement, lower wages and reduce or end benefits that union members and non-members working in union shops enjoy. Obama has every right—in fact an obligation—to stand with workers in Detroit and rally them to support his budget and support the right of unions to exist for the protection and benefit of workers.
You would think that with the resounding Obama and Democratic victories of last month NPR would see that their bread is buttered on the left side and no longer on the right, but they don’t. And this could be bad news for them as NPR heads into its annual holiday pledge drive. Alienating liberals—who historically are much more generous individual donors than conservatives—is not a good idea unless NPR is confident that its Republican-leaning corporate sponsors are already in the bag.