I was too slow on the uptake to actually sign this thing but I'd like to associate myself with its sentiments. Long story short -- ABC sucks.
« Vegetable Card | Main | Knowing Which Way The Wind Blows »
They Write Letters
18 Apr 2008 01:43 pm
Comments (20)
There still may be time; they'll have to fix the signatures to note that Michael Bérubé is associated with the Pennsylvania State University, not the University of Pennsylvania.
I think it just means he would have signed it if he wasn't "slow on the uptake." But then "slow on the uptake" doesn't seem very useful either. Is it a euphemism for "out of the loop"?
Shorter (OK, longer) long story short -- Thou Shalt Not Question The Messiah!
You might want to talk to your buddy Ambinder about this, who has been busy for the last couple of days defending ABC. Hilariously, he made a post today whining about his recent comments sections (which have deteriorated badly, with me being one of the worst offenders), wondering why the recent spate of abusive comments. It does not even seem to have occurred to him that part of the reason was his own clueless-at-best (I'm bending over backwards to be fair) full-throated defense of the travesty, combined with some pretty extreme blame-the-victim Obama bashing.
I know you can't really tell tales out of school, but what is up with Ambinder? I mean, even NRO probably provided a more nuanced and objective account of the debate, for goodness sakes.
Well the debate was awful, but one thing I'm surprised (okay, not really) didn't get much notice was that Hillary committed the unforgivable sin of re-enforcing the frame that social security is "in crisis".
Yes sure, the rubes for Hillary--including the king rube Paul Krugman--ignored the "you can't repeat conservative framing" when it came to race baiting, pretending 9/11 was a casus belli for invading Iraq, pretending flag burning or the content of video games are pressing social issues, fake bullshit about phone calls at 3 am in the morning (I believe Hillary approved the greatest national security disaster in US history during the middle of the day) and nebulous commander in chief tests, painting democratic nominees for president, past and future, as elitist, scurrilous allegations of fellow a democrat as a terrorist-cavorting-with possible muslim, etc.
However, one might think that implying that social security was in crisis would be a "gaffe"--but not if you're Hillary Clinton! No, surprisingly, it turns out that our rubes can't even be consistent in their arbitrary bullshit that they claim is the only *true* standard to select a president. Oh well, I guess it's okay since all of Hillary's lies and sins are forgivable because they're "just words" and what really matters is that she knows how to fight and lose against the right wingers.
Anyway, here is the evidence, from the transcript in the debate:
SENATOR OBAMA: And that's -- and that's -- and that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between....
...
And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we're going to do that and not just say that we're going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent....
...
But when it comes to Social Security, fiscal responsibility is the first and most important step. You've got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund.
And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you've got to get Republicans and Democrats together.
That's what I will do.
"The best and smartest way" to deal with a--gasp!--crisis is to form a commission! Oh noes, what will we tell the rubes? Petey, quick we need your trolling now more than ever!
Regarding the letter though, I'm not sure I like the tone. The problem wasn't so much that the questions were on character rather than policy - that's a defensible approach, though the balance was probably a little off - but the nature and focus of the questions, the repetition of Republican talking points and irrelevance of the particular "character" issues explored.
I remember well how vociferously the Clintonites attacked Obama's supposed use and reinforcement of conservative frames. Funny, you don't hear that so much anymore now that their girl has gone over completely to the dark side.
MOVE.org is trying to get 100,000 signatures to a letter to ABC News criticizing the moderation of the debate by Charlies Gibson and George Stepetc.
You can also add in a personal message to ABC --I favor something along the lines of Titus Pullo's favorite oration in ROME.
See http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage
A sternly worded letter? I'm sure that'll learn 'em.
Didn't you have a post yesterday on the MSM's suicide pact?
And I did see today that The New York Times lost money in the 1Q and buried the news that 1Q revenue was down about 5% in nominal dollars.
Funny, you don't hear that so much anymore now that their girl has gone over completely to the dark side.
You seem to have missed digby's ten-part series on the evil indicated by HRC's supplication of and endorsement by Scaife. Oh, wait, so did I. But at least, AFAIK, she hasn't declared herself a supporter HRC; officially, she's still neutral.
Re "Hillary committed the unforgivable sin of re-enforcing the frame that social security is "in crisis".
----------
1) As most people here know, I really dislike Hillary. But what I also dislike is the meme that Social Security is not in trouble. Because it is obviously lying to the Democratic base.
We have $12 TRILLION in Social Security obligations to the baby boomers --not counting being roughly $40 TRILLION in the hole for Medicare.
2) AND THERE'S NOTHING in the Trust Fund. Bush and the Republicans took all the money and spent it --$2 Trillion went for their tax cut gift to the superrich. Of course Bush had the help in 2002 of a few renegade Democrats like Zell Miller and John Bureaux.
Sure there's $4 TRILLION in IOUS (US Treasuries) --most written by Bush and Republican Congresses. But that's NOT assets --that's a DEBT burden ON our future earnings.
Any "asset" which says YOU ARE on the hook to pay $200,000 to YOURSELF is WORTHLESS.
3) So where is the $52 TRILLION coming from? Soak the rich? Make them give the $2 Trillion back?
Wrong. The Rich will ALWAYS be able to buy enough Senators to prevent a tax increase on their income.
4) Gee, I know. The baby boomers 401Ks and IRAs are in Before-Tax dollars and can be taxed as high as that government wants. So let's pay the baby boomers their Social Security by heavily taxing the withdrawals they make from the IRAs in retirement. Sorta "Rob Peter to ..uh..pay Peter."
5) And the minor little detail that the baby boomers will be eating dog food if they don't vote Democratic --as a way out of a deep financial hole that Democrats help put them in -- is ,of course, a feature, not a bug.
"Trillion" (after the trillion we've spent on Iraq in just 5.5 years) isn't quite the scare word that it used to be. Better bump it to "brazilian".
And that evil fucker Ambinder is at it again. With a whole host of polls, nationally and in PA, either staying the same or moving in Obama's direction, he cherry picks the one poll which shows a narrowing race nationally.
You know, many people assume he is a Clinton supporter. I wasn't willing to give him that much credit, but at least I gave him enough credit to assume he was motivated by a non-corrupt motive like favoritism towards McCAin.
But now it seems likely that he is actively corrupt. Matthew, have you noticed an improvement in his lifestyle lately? Snazzier clothing? A new car? vacation place in the Caribbean?
Yeah, blah, it was weird how Paul Krugman literally wrote the book on how the republicans exploited race to take political control of the south and now he's all, "What? It's not like they called him a 'nigger'." So Regan mentioning states rights in Philly, MS was a grave sin--and it was--but the Clintons desperately trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate" was just normal politics.
He and the rest of the Clintonites are still bent out of shape about the crisis thing, but they studiously ignore every other right wing frame Hillary exploits in her rhetoric. Now Paul is pretty depressed and only comments on the race when noting how unbelievably stupid Obama is for questioning the progressive cred of the administration that was pro free trade, ended big government as we know it, and got all those lazy blacks off welfare.
Great point, SCMT, I forgot about RMS, as well as drudge and murdoch. Nobody's perfect, but that shit really pissed me off. Hillary and Bill have always been about themselves, not the movement. It isn't a coincidence that while Bill prospered, the rest of the party was in shambles.
What's odd to me is the notion that hillary's supporters have of her that she's been this progressive stalwart; as if she were a female Russ Feingold, ted Kennedy, Wellstone, etc. She isn't running on single payer, anti-war (from the start), etc. She's pretty explicitly running as the American Maggie Thatcher (only centrist on domestic policy). I understand the decades of sublimated frustration that her campaign has unleashed for women and feminists, but really, Hillary's a pretty shitty candidate, all things considered. Especially the whole thing about how she's already lost and is now destroying the party to assuage her endless narcissism
it was weird how Paul Krugman literally wrote the book on how the republicans exploited race to take political control of the south
I think is was Kevin Phillips that wrote the book.
"I think is was Kevin Phillips that wrote the book."
I think Richard Nixon wrote *the* book, although I think that's just arguing semantics at this point. So, fine, Krugman wrote *a* book detailing how race was a huge factor in gop success in the south...and it was published a couple of months before he suddenly became as color blind as Stephen Colbert--and sadly, just as farcical.
3) So where is the $52 TRILLION coming from? Soak the rich? Make them give the $2 Trillion back?
Wrong. The Rich will ALWAYS be able to buy enough Senators to prevent a tax increase on their income.
Dude, you need to get a grip. Conceding defeat before you even start the fight isn't very smart. Increasing the SS contribution max wouldn't be too hard a way to increase revenues in a progressive fashion, but as long as SS is solvent, I would try to keep the pressure on the wealthy and away from SS lest that pressure turn to reducing benefits. Anyhow, increasing the SS max is an increase starting at around 100K in income. But we should be looking at increasing the marginal rate for those making 100-300K and up.
Re mpowell's comment "I would try to keep the pressure on the wealthy "
-------------
How many $Millions did you give your Senator in the past few months?
I thought so.
So Do you seriously think your Senator gives a hairy rodent's posterior what you think?
Don't worry, Matt, I mean, you did manage to sign that letter from outraged prominent journalists to NBC protesting Brian Williams and Tim Russert's treatment of Hillary in the earlier debates.
Oh, wait...
Comments closed May 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Is "associate myself with" the new "empower"? A phrase that's a little useful and a lot irritating?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 18, 2008 1:47 PM