WHAT ABOUT HILLARY AND OBAMA? DO THEY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OR THE CORPORATIONS? JUST ASKIN'
>
Labels: Democratic presidential race, John Edwards, unions
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 12:55 PM
3 comments
|
Reddit
3 Comments:
Sorry, this has nothing to do with your current question, but is in response to your posting on AlterNet, 16 Oct 2007
To CNN,
14 Little Questions
After witnessing what your organization staged as a presidential candidates debate on the night of 16 October, and although fully realizing that large amounts of expensive air time needs to be spent on state issued driver's license requirements-yes or no, please-and other pressing concerns, diamonds or pearls?-yes or no. Did no one appreciate that this last question might beg for a nuanced answer? With denim? With basic black? An event held at an anti-poverty conference?
Those concerns aside, I do have to wonder why none of the following made it into Blitzer's repertoire:
1.) Everyone today is seemingly for health care, motherhood, children,and apple pie. What exactly is your health care proposal? In some detail. please. How do you plan on implementing it? Is it truly universal? If not, why? Yes or no in this case is not desirable as an answer.
2.) If you are elected president, what form do you envision America's continuing relationship with the current or any future governments of Israel taking?
4.) What in your view are the common strategic interests shared by the U.S. and Israel?
5.) Do you truly believe that the Israeli-Palestinian impasse is one factor fueling anti-Americanism and terrorism in the Middle East, and, if so, what would be your plan for addressing the problem of these ongoing hostilities?
6.) Do you believe unqualified support for current Israeli policies contributes to the intransigence on the Israeli side of the equation? Is unquestioned American support for Israel good for America? Is it good for Israel?
7.) If you are elected president, do you have any plans to include in your administration Republicans such as Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul, both of whom adopted what is commonly perceived to be the Democratic Party's position currently with regard to the Iraq War long before some of you on this dais came around to that view?
8.) Can you please define what you mean by "combat" troops. As we learned in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, all troops in guerrilla wars are de facto "combat" troops. Exactly how many troops do you expect to remain in Iraq and for how long?
9.) What will be the role of military contractors be in Iraq under your administration and what personnel levels do you foresee and for how long?
10.) What are your plans for the number and size of any, if any, permanent or long term bases currently in existence or currently under construction in Iraq?
11.) Do you contemplate any roles in your administration for adherents of interventionist policy such as Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Anthony Lake, Rahm Emanuel,and Sandy Berger?
12.) Do you believe that lying the American Republic into a disastrous war, or any war for that matter, is an impeachable offense, and, if so, what are, or would be, your reasons for not pursuing impeachment measures against George Bush and Richard Cheney?
13.) As President would you seek to roll back the Bush Administration's unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers? What is your position, for the record, on the "unitary executive" theory? What is your position, for the record, on "Executive Privilege" as it might apply to your administration?
14.) Beyond Iranian rhetoric and posturing, much of which has been either mis-translated or distorted in the mainstream media, please explain in detail what makes you believe, if you do so believe, that Iran is a military threat to the United States of America.
These are just a very few questions that were not asked. There are certainly many others that also need to be asked, devoid of agitprop, simple-minded talking points, and political cliche, which under no circumstances should be tolerated by any responsible journalist.
There is little doubt, I am sure, that these questions may be less entertaining, even lending themselves to charges of being overly wonkish, than the "diamonds or pearls conundrum" or snippy repartee over driver's licenses, flip flopping, boys' clubs and piling on, and the slinging of "mud," but one would think in the cause of honest, informative journalism of a free republic that would be a necessary risk any news organization considered legitimate would have to take. One would think so, but one could also be wrong, very, very wrong.
Roland Poche
New Orleans, La
My friends (Some of you may not be my friends after reading this. I am not only going to preach to the "choir"-one has to take his chances),
I pass along my recent post (and also a letter to CNN) in response to an Alternet post commenting on the, and I use this term loosely, poor quality of CNN's anchors posing the questions to the candidates for the presidency of our nation in the most recent farce that the mainstream corporate media refers to as a "debate". If George Bush accomplished anything positive during his tenure, one would think that it would be a solid demonstration that whomever is president does, in fact, make a difference in the lives of all of us. Even if you do not know anyone currently, or in the past, who is serving and suffering in Iraq, or who has been wounded or killed there, even if you don't know any Palestinian people who have been displaced and brutalized, even if you don't feel like the violations of Constitutional protections the Bush administration has engaged in materially affects your life, even if you are not constantly in fear of losing your job due the increasing precariousness of our shaky, massively indebted, corporatist economy, every time you put gasoline in your car and in consequence every time you heat or air condition your home, buy food or other necessities or seek medical treatment, you are materially affected. And I have little doubt that we, and our children and likely their children, will all be continuously affected for a very long time to come.
How long can we stand for this: self-styled media celebrities interviewing and supposedly reporting on political celebrities; members of the same mutually-reinforcing club; the ammoral commenting on the ammoral; the sell-outs informing us about the sold-outs? How long can the Republic stand for this? How long can the Republic stand with this?
In peace, freedom, and love,
Roland
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/68203/
Posted by: blackie4aces on Nov 17, 2007 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To call these TeeVee shows "debates" is akin to calling a plow mule a thoroughbred racehorse. It is abundantly obvious that CNN has decided who the candidates should be. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are the triumvirate of legitimacy and, coincidentally I am sure (?), celebrity. At least according to the sages at CNN.
Blitzer is truly pathetic. The "minor" candidates had to fight for time to give answers of any complexity at all before this idiot cut them off. How much time did he waste on the non-issue of Driver's Licenses, a state prerogative not a federal one.
The pasty smiles of the three anointed ones appeared to be slathered on with superglue. These three caused me to wonder more than once if I had tuned into the 700 Club by mistake. Biden, I assume, is included for comic relief. And the other candidates, none of whom were smiling, seem to be present as props, based on the time allotted them, evidently to create the pretense of a political process and free inquiry into all dimensions of the issues.
But can anyone be surprised? Where was this media during the most serious event of the this new century-the rush to the insane war in Iraq? Where are they now in response to the usurpation of the U.S. Constitution besides playing the role of announcers heralding the latest imperial edict? The utterly pitiful reality is that no one is surprised.
Here's the rub....I do know many soldiers who have or are serving in Iraq. Guess what, they are proud do do so and most if not all believe in the mission. I know, I know, they have all been brainwashed, right?
I guess a Palestinian has never killed an Israli child.
Do you really think that the courts of this country won't protect the Constitution?
All I get from your rant is that you don't believe in the basic concepts of this country.
You certainly have a right to your opinion; thank God there aren't a whole lot like you.
al, you suck big time. I wish I could ignore you more vehemently.
Post a Comment
<< Home