"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Bibi Netanyahu has a brainstorm for promoting the Israeli government's policies: a network of student astroturfers!
>
See, Bibi can too use a computer! (Or can he?)
astroturfing. A slang term used to mean "artificial" blog buzz. In the blogosphere people may blog about a new product, which in turn prompts others to blog the product's message. When the original blog(s) have been started by a PR company, it is called astroturfing. -- Webopedia
by Ken
What if it's not a PR company doing the astroturfing, but the government of a country, and the "product" is the government's policies?
First, about the above picture. Just try and tell me it doesn't cry out for a thought bubble showing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thinking, "Would somebody please tell me how the #*^% to work this #*^%ing thing?" I find it hard not to think of the legendary 1995 Dilbert strip (click on it to enlarge):
DILBERT (April 9, 1995)
No, Prime Minister, remember you have to hold it upside down and shake it to reboot.
So I'm not exactly confident about the PM's computer skills. Presumably, however, he knows people who know how to do, er, stuff with computers. And now he has become just about the last person on earth to come up with the idea of doing dirty tricks with one. He has reached out to a proposed network of students to (as a recent Haaretz editorial puts it) "operate on social networks as undercover spokesmen for the government and its actions."
As is often the case, Haaretz is not highly sympathetic to the PM's goals or methods.
The Prime Minister's Office plan to set up a unit of students to operate on social networks as undercover spokesmen for the government and its actions reflects not only the depth of international suspicion of Israel's government, but also the fact that Netanyahu and staff favor public diplomacy tricks above all else.
Haaretz Editorial | Aug. 14, 2013 | 5:44 AM | 5
The Prime Minister's Office wants to set up a unit of students to operate on social networks as undercover spokesmen for the government and its actions. And it's right to want to do so: At a time when clouds of disbelief frequently hover over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it has no choice but to recruit new spokesmen, people whose credibility is presently intact. This is a cynical plan that reflects not only the depth of international suspicion of Israel's government, but also the fact that Netanyahu and his staff favor public diplomacy tricks above all else.
According to the report published by Barak Ravid in on Tuesday Haaretz, the government wants to invest almost NIS 3 million in deploying hundreds of students to promote its positions on social media networks -- but with no governmental identification. The public diplomacy units to be established at the universities will operate under the direction of the public diplomacy staff in the Prime Minister's Office, but "The entire idea of the setup is based on activity of students and by students," and therefore, "the idea requires that the state's role not be highlighted."
The above quotes are taken from the official request to the government tenders committee to approve the contract with the National Student Union, which will be a party to this semi-secret project. The honesty of those behind the program is impressive. Perhaps we should praise the government for having finally understood that its official words and deeds can no longer convince the public, either in Israel or abroad. To accomplish that, it turns out, it's better to pretend and to pay others.
This crude attempt by the Likud-led government to burnish its image by recruiting students should also be quashed in the interest of the students themselves. The bribes in the form of stipends that the Prime Minister's Office will pay to the hundreds of warriors in the universities' "public diplomacy units" will raise questions about the honesty of their activity. It's also safe to assume that Arab students won't make it through the project's screening process.
The student union's cooperation with this enterprise turns it into an arm of the government's propaganda apparatus. Aren't these the very students who, for instance, ought to be rising up against the harm Netanyahu's diplomatic policy will cause to research? Aren't these the very students who protested against his economic policy? Instead of protecting academia against political interference, the student leaders are helping subordinate it to directives from the Prime Minister's Office.
A solution to Israel's "image problem" won't be achieved by dirty tricks. To accomplish that, what's needed is a change in policy.
In this, the Israeli government is hardly alone in its misperception. Put highly self-regarding pols together with highly cynical and self-serving advisers, and it's hardly ever possible to persuade the swells that their popularity is sagging not because of their "image" but because of their policies. And one suspects that Israel's isn't the only government on the planet to have suffered the brainstorm of thinking that astroturfing will promote the cause. Merely, perhaps, the clumsiest.
The only thing scarier is the thought that just possibly they could be right.
#
SUNDAY CLASSICS SCHEDULE NOTE FROM KEN
Today's back-to-The Gondoliers post will appear at 9pm ET/6pm PT, for infinitely complex scheduling reasons, generally having to do with the expectation that I won't be able to finish it before then.
Not every right-winger is a moron. Sure, every teabagger is a moron, but some right-wingers aren't teabaggers. This week Alabama winger Byron York was asking his fellow Republicans if they've been "fooling themselves" about Obamacare. He may not have figured out yet that his fellow Republicans have built themselves an operation that fools themselves about every little ole thing.
When I mentioned that every teabagger is a moron, I wasn't trying to be gratuitously mean. It was just a plain vanilla statement of fact. These are people who have persuaded themselves that they're playing the role of Patriots (rather than Tories), while all their ideas are Tory ideas and they show their contempt for Americans Patriots by banishing Thomas Jefferson from the history books when they get control. Too stupid and delusional to know any better, they have made themselves into the foot soldiers of a plutocracy that would enslave their children and grandchildren. Without them-- and similar deluded fools-- the political right would consist of a few thousand super-rich people in gated communities. This is what's left of the Republican Party. In his book, The Machine, Lee Fang goes into some depth talking about the mechanics of Republican self-delusion.
While front groups have existed for years, the use of such hoaxes has skyrocketed in response to Obama’s election. Facing a tidal wave of progressive reforms promised by Obama on the campaign trail, corporations and the right wing leaned on a cadre of public relations operatives skilled in the art of manipulating policy debates and reshaping political discourse on a national level. These PR mavens sit at the hub of influence within the right-wing machine. They serve as the strategists who ultimately plan how to kill reform-- from conducting the research, to inventing phony groups driving a certain message, to coordinating the attacks. With large-scale reforms promised in energy, health care, financial regulation, labor, and tax policy, front groups have multiplied and become more sophisticated than ever. Some of the deceptive third-party groups used by political operatives of today are temporary, ad hoc “coalitions” created to sway a single issue area or piece of legislation. When Democrats pushed to pass student lending reform-- which cut $60 billion in waste from private lenders who had been channeling the loans while skimming taxpayer money off the top-- the private lending industry, including PNC, Sallie Mae, SunTrust, Nelnet, and others, contracted the PR firm Qorvis Communications to stop the legislation. On of the many tactics used by Qorvis was the creation of a purportedly “grassroots” organization called Protect Student Choice. The website for the group did not disclose that it was bankrolled by profiteering student loan companies and banks. Qorvis staffer Karen Henretty posed as a news reporter on the program Focus Washington, along with officers of the College Republicans to criticize the legislation and falsely claim that it hurt students. When the Senate passed lending reform, Qorvis’s front lost a purpose and disappeared. Other fronts are permanent rent-a-front groups-- ostensible “think tanks” that serve as vessels for corporate lobbying campaigns. Many rental fronts pose as nonprofits dedicated to ideological goals, like removing regulation or cutting taxes. The specific issues triumphed by a rent-a-front are often linked to its donors. One of the loudest conservative groups defending BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, was Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks nonprofit. The group alleged that the Obama administration had no right to negotiate a $20 billion escrow account to compensate the victims of the spill. A PowerPoint presentation showed that starting in 2007, the oil industry, including companies like BP, had concocted a multitiered campaign through seemingly grassroots groups like FreedomWorks to promote offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. FreedomWorks never disclosed this relationship, or the fact that FreedomWorks counts the American Petroleum Institute among its major donors. Armey’s group positioned itself instead as simply a staunch defender of corporations against all government intrusion, even when that corporation spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf. Corporate efforts to steer the debate are often hidden behind nonprofits that are supposedly formed for a niche audience as well. An ExxonMobil-linked public relations firm called CDR Communications helped create a variety of fronts opposed to action on carbon pollution. One group, called the Cornwall Alliance, organized pastors and the evangelical community to oppose efforts to cap greenhouse gases. Cornwall Alliance released a DVD, Resisting the Green Dragon, which compared the belief in global warming with paganism. Spokesmen for the group regularly appeared on conservative media, including the Glenn Beck program, to tout anticlean energy conspiracy theories under the guise of objective religious commentators. The public relations industry is often paired with other influence-peddling strategies. While insider lobbyists work within the halls of Congress to pressure lawmakers, political operatives whip up public outrage and sow divisions among reform proponents. Most important, even though PR firms are akin to lobbying organizations, albeit through channels outside Congress, they do not have to disclose their clients or how much they are being paid. In many cases their true intent is never discovered. This chapter is a window into some of the new, innovative campaign strategies employed by public relation experts working against progressive reforms.
Friday we took a little look at how the oligarchs and plutocrats and their right-wing political parties have been able to subvert a free press by literally buying out the media. But that isn't the only way today's brand of fascist-oriented Republicans is so similar to the fascists who called the shots in the GOP in the 1920s and '30s. Back then they needed shock troops on the streets too, kind of like the brainless Teabaggers the corporate interests were able to cobble together over the past couple of years. Again, I'm turning to Glen Yeadon's compelling and exhaustive book The Nazi Hydra In America:
[S]uperpatriot groups gathered their strength from the right wing, not the general public, their financial support coming directly from corporations and the rich elite. The National Civic Federation received most of its support from V. Everit Macy, August Belmont and Elbert Gary. Likewise, the National Protective League was supported by T. Coleman du Pont, Henry Frick, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. While the National Civic Federation was under the direction of Matthew Woll as acting president, it collaborated closely with Nazi agents in this country. Another group from the 1920s that underwent the transformation from a nativist group to fascism was Harry Jung's American Vigilant Intelligence Federation.
In effect, these superpatriot groups, along with the American Legion, were bridging the chasm between the rich elite and the general population. These groups were fashioned in such a way as to appeal to a large segment of the population by invoking a false sense of patriotism, while the directors and operating officers remained fully under the control of the elite. Secondary to the patriotism of these groups was a very conservative economic agenda. With the exception of the National Civic Federation, all of these groups were virulently antiunion. The National Civic Federation included a few trade unionists on its board of directors, but still maintained an aggressive open shop policy. ... Newspapers ran scare headlines to shock the public and harden public opinion against unions [and reactionary] clergymen such as David Burrell of Marble Collegiate Church in New York City claimed the Bible not only proved the closed chop was unpatriotic, but also unchristian...
In the post-war period, the membership of these patriot groups was relatively small. However, they exerted an influence that far outstripped their numbers. Their propaganda efforts were well-funded and well-organized.
...In 1924, the Hearst papers, the American Legion, and the Ku Klux Klan led the charge for the "American-ization" of school books, loyalty oaths for teachers, and harsher immigration legislation. These three organizations would become deeply tied to fascism in the following decade. Several members of the American Legion were involved in the fascist plot of 1934 against FDR. The Hearst papers would become an open propaganda outlet for the Nazis and fascism. The Klan would go on to form an alliance with the American Bund. ... Two factors with roots in the late 1800s set the stage for the rebirth of the Klan. The first was massive immigration from Europe. The American Protective Association, formed in 1887, was virulently anti-alien. The group was particularly strong in the Midwest, where the Klan became strong in the 1920s. The other factor was the populist movement of the 1890s which sought to unite blacks and poorer whites against mill owners and the conservative elite of the South.
It's like nothing seems to have changed 8 or 9 decades later! The wealthy and privileged elites will always fight with all they've got to maintain the status quo... or-- like today and like the '20's-- eradicate social progress and move society backwards. And finding ground troops is never difficult or even very expensive.
Drinking Coke Causes Cancer, Obesity, Diabetes And Putrification
>
Not being one of Palin's "real Americans," I watch almost no TV. But it seems that every time I've put it on in the last month I saw the ad above on my screen. It's so full of blatant Madison Avenue manipulative techniques that it made my blood boil. And the first question, of course, has to be "Who the hell are these people?" Because, let's face it, they're certainly not "just plain folks" sick of the government taxing disease-causing products.
Their website gave me a good hint that these Americans Against Food Taxes are corporations selling cancer- and obesity-causing beverages. And the main financier is a Turk named Muhtar who's made $19,628,585 from his job at Coke, so the oh-so-prominent prominent "American" thing, well... it's possible, but which Americans do they represent? SourceWatch describes AAFT as "a front group funded by the beverage industry which consists of major restaurant chains, food and soft drink manufacturers and their associated lobbying groups," pointing back to a column that NY Times ethicist Randy Cohen wrote in September 2009, called "An Anti-Tax Argument That's Hard To Swallow."
The Issue
Proposals to tax sugary drinks as a way to fight obesity and finance health care reform have found support from medical experts and some interest from President Obama while meeting resistance from the beverage industry in general and the Coca-Cola C.E.O. Muhtar Kent in particular. “I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” he told the Rotary Club of Atlanta last month. “If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.” Is this sort of argument so dubious, and does it come from the maker of products so damaging, that Muhtar Kent should be dragged off in handcuffs-- or worse?
The Argument
I am an expert on neither tax policy nor nutrition, but it is worth examining a few of the arguments against taxing sugary drinks as examples of the reasoning all of us can encounter when making moral choices or weighing the issues of the day or confronting a bumptious uncle at Thanksgiving.
Muhtar Kent’s assertion is fishy because it confuses a positive and a negative. The various plans under consideration do not tell us what we should drink; they are concerned with what we should not drink-- sugary beverages, what critics call “liquid candy.” Urging people not to drive short distances is different from saying they should reach the corner store by hopping. Urging people not to drink cola is different from pressuring them to drink cat pee.
And of course our government does tell people what to eat and has for years. Perhaps “tell” is too coercive a term-- no federal food police pound on your door at dinnertime demanding to see your broccoli. But “strongly recommend” is apt. Kent should check out the Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid at the delightfully titled MyPyramid.gov or visit nutrition.gov where jackbooted thugs engage in tyrannical meal planning-- O.K., there are no jackboots and no thuggery, but there are some tasty menus. (The recipe for cranberry-nut muffins looks delish.)
Our government, as many a nation does, also tells people what to eat in other ways, both directly, by creating menus for public-school cafeterias and military mess halls, and indirectly, influencing our diets through farm policies, tariffs, trade agreements and food regulation.
(Kent’s further assertion, his evocation of the Soviets, is entirely meretricious, deploying the familiar debater’s tactic of deprecating something by linking it to what is widely reviled. The Beatles are bad because Pol Pot liked “Hey, Jude.” Bowling is evil because Satan plays-- he’s on a team with John and George.)
It is commonplace for a democracy to concern itself with the nutrition of its citizens. What is rightly and vigorously debated-- by, for example, the writer Michael Pollan, the documentary film “Food, Inc.,” the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association or the American Academy Of Pediatrics-- is not if government should involve itself in such things, but how. That’s politics in the best sense.
...Such errors of reasoning might be seen as intellectual, not moral, failings, but it is difficult to extend that benefit of the doubt to Americans Against Food Taxes, which describes itself as “a coalition of concerned citizens-- responsible individuals, financially strapped families, small and large businesses in communities across the country.” As was reported in The Times, A.A.F.T. looks like a veiled industry organization; calls to a media contact listed on the group’s Web site go to the American Beverage Association. This smells like Astroturf, or corporate lobbyists posing as a grass-roots organization. It is entirely suitable for interested parties to participate in public debate; it is not suitable to conceal who’s doing the debating.
SourceWatch notes that AAFT "was organized by the American Beverage Association to fight a proposed three to ten cent tax on soda, sugary drinks and energy drinks to help fund health care reform in the United States."
Its domain name, www.nofoodtaxes.com, is registered to Goddard Claussen public relations, based in Washington, D.C. Goddard Claussen's Web site boasts, "Fortune magazine branded us the 'Go-to guys in issue advocacy' because of our groundbreaking public affairs and branding campaigns, our industry-leading 9 out of 10 win record on ballot measure campaigns, and our history-making issue advocacy campaigns."
UPDATE: Tomorrow Is John Boehner Day
Boehner is all about poisoning America with sugar and empty calories and then leaving them sick and without healthcare. The National Enquirer will be running a major exposé on him tomorrow-- regarding a different kind of sugar... but the same kind of corruption:
Yes, tomorrow, Thursday-- and it's the Valentine's Day issue:
Townshirt Disruptive Tactics Come To L.A. Health Care Forums
>
My Congresswoman, Diane Watson (D-CA), held a town hall forum in the district last night. I didn't even know about it, which is odd since I tend to pay attention to these kinds of things. Fortunately a friend did go and he told me it was a peaceful affair, with around 400 people at the AME Church in West Adams, overwhelmingly people who support health care reform. There were a few teabaggers, two of whom came in costumes-- one as Dracula and one as hideous and bloated version of Ted Kennedy. It's almost as though the two idiots were begging to be assaulted so they could go running to Fox. They sat scowling at the audience, taking photos. Congresswoman Watson was one of the first members of Congress to sign the letter to Speaker Pelosi saying she would not vote for any health care legislation that didn't include-- at least-- a public option. She's one of the 65 members of the House that Blue America has been collecting thank you contributions for. If you'd like to take a look at our campaign, or add to it, here's the link.
Meanwhile, in another part of L.A. County there was a health care town hall hosted by the Peace and Justice Committee of the Religious Society of Friends and the Claremont Democratic Club in Claremont. The area's congressmember-- David Dreier, an absentee congressman in the best of times-- predictably refused invitations to come. He runs his family's real estate development business near Kansas City and lives there when he isn't in Washington. But without Dreier, citizens of Claremont gathered for a respectful give and take about the health care debate. At least that was the intention. Teabagging rightists immediately attempted to unfurl their agenda of disruption.
The crowd was large and enthusiastic and spilled out the door of the 150 seat auditorium, many attendees straining to listen from an outdoor patio. A determined heckler, Charles Cox from an extremist group calling itself Survivors of Abortion Holocaust, was removed from the auditorium by the crowd when he shouted "Unamerican" at a panelist who was advocating for a single payer system. The heckler, who is from Riverside, muscled his way back into the forum, was disruptive again and was removed again. He the went around to a side door and was blocked from entering. When he continued to shout out "this meeting is breaking the law." Organizers were forced to shut the door leaving many people out of the town hall. The heckler's female friend, who was inside, then opened the door and he attempted to enter. One of the organizers was forced to push the heckler back, and the heckler fell to the ground loudly claiming assault-- a now all to familiar right wing self-victimization strategy-- and made a plea for the cavalry to come. While on the phone with paramedics, this disruptive outsider had to ask "What city are we in?"
Funny thing-- he refused care when the paramedics rolled a stretcher up to the door and was overheard talking about a preexisting condition. Word is, he is pressing assault charges against the volunteer who was trying to keep the peace. No doubt, he'll soon be peddling his tale of martyrdom on Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's anti-health care circus. Here, it goes to show, this is such a hot button issue, it can even get blood boiling in pacifist Claremont.
When the forum finally got back on track after the disruption many people had the chance to get up on their soap boxes and make pleas for everything from tort reform to maintaining the status quo. Russ Warner, the progressive Democrat who is running for Congress-- and has been endorsed by DWT received a huge round of applause when he acknowledged how passionate people are about the issue and how important it is to be part of the live town hall forum. "I will never hide behind the telephone."
An owner of a local small business in the district himself, Warner has been a backer of health care reform for a very long time. He's been pointing out to voters in CA-26 how the bill Congress is crafting now would bring enormous benefits to the local area, particularly to seniors and to over 13,000 small businesses in the district. Over 1,300 families in the district wouldn't have to face the trauma of health care related bankruptcy if the bill passes. Dreier isn't supporting health care reform-- he's picked up a cool $287,642 from the Insurance Business and another hefty $602,339 from the Medical-Industrial Complex-- but Warner is, and he's paying very close attention to the bills in Congress. Yesterday the Energy and Commerce Committee released a study about how their bill would impact CA-26.
• Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 13,200 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits.
• Help for seniors with drug costs in the Part D donut hole. Each year, 11,200 seniors in the district hit the donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.
• Health care and financial security. There were 1,300 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.
• Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. In 2008, health care providers in the district provided $35 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and were unable to pay their bills. Under the legislation, these costs of uncompensated care would be virtually eliminated.
• Coverage of the uninsured. There are 92,000 uninsured individuals in the district, 13% of the district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationwide, 97% of all Americans will have insurance coverage when the bill takes effect. If this benchmark is reached in the district, 71,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage.
• No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals. This surtax would affect only 6,750 households in the district. The surtax would not affect 97.8% of taxpayers in the district.
The concerted astro-turfing of the health care debate is very well-documented and the Republican Party success at diverting the debate from health care reform to unfocused hatred, fears, anger, racism and generalized divisiveness has disqualified them from being taken seriously as participants.
I don't have video of either of last night's Los Angeles County town hall meetings but I'd like to share a clip from two earlier health care debates (1971 and 1974) that will probably sound awfully familiar to anyone who's been paying attention this year. First, please check how Miss McConnell (R-KY), who has received $943,507 in thinly disguised bribes from the Insurance Industry and another startling $2,770,168 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, is approaching the health care debate. Playing strictly by the Insurance Industry's playbook, he contends that everything's pretty hunky-dory-- which it is... if you're a millionaire or a member of Congress (he's both) with no worries about health care.
I've been writing about my fabulous adventure with the teabaggers in Alhambra all week and I've been posting pictures that I took and that my old pal, filmmaker Nancy Stein, took. I arrived at the Adam Schiff town hall thing at 4pm, three hours before it started, at a time when most of the people milling around (or sitting in lawn chairs) were from the far right local fringe group, Pasadena Patriots and other assorted nuts, teabaggers, and, as Larry Schorr dubbed them, "townshirts."
I spent the three hours talking with them-- not arguing for the most part, just trying to understand where they're coming from. Some were just confused people with a lot of time on their hands and too many hours listening to the self-serving sociopathic hate rants by Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck and Dobbs... but some were dedicated movement conservatives following the agenda laid out in Dick Armey's Freedomworks playbook for systematically disrupting Democratic town halls and intimidating congressmen and normal constituents. Read a few lines from it-- this leaked plan for intimidating easily-intimidated, congenitally cowardly members of Congress:
* Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington. They need to leave the hall with so me doubts about their agenda. The other objective is to illustrate for the balance of the audience that the national leadership is acting against our founders' principles which are on the other side of the debate-- and show them that there are a lot of solid citizens in the district who oppose the socialist approach to the nation's challenges. We want the independent thinkers to leave the hall with doubts about the Democrat solutions continually proposed by the national leadership.
* You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses-- call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out. Don't carry on and make a scene-- just short intermittent shout outs. The purpose is to make him uneasy early on and set the tone for the hall as clearly informal, and free-wheeling. It will also embolden others who agree with us to call out and challenge with tough questions. The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.
* When the formal Q&A session begins get all your hands up and keep up-- be persistent throughout the entire session. Keep body language neutral and look positive to improve chances of being selected. When called on, a specific prepared question that puts the onus on to answer. It can be a question including lots of statistics/facts. You will not be interrupted from reading a solid question. If you ramble on too long without a focus, you wiII be stopped. After the Rep answers, or more likely diverts or dodges, be prepared with a follow-up take the initiative and you will be able to follow-up. The balance of the group should applaud when the question is asked, further putting the Rep on the defensive. If the Rep tries a particularly odious diversion, someone from the group should yell out to answer the question. These tactics will clearly rattle the Rep and illustrate some degree of his ineptness to the balance of the audience.
At the bottom of this post is a YouTube posted by a right-wing propagandist. It's of a team I met in Alhambra, a man and a woman with posters even more aggressively bizarre than other's, filled with self-righteous anger and bile. This is another teabagger even though-- one in front of Dianne Feinstein's office a few days later. I had listened to the woman's sob story about how she's been screwed over by the insurance companies-- one of which she is suing. I was curious why she was so opposed to health care reform that would address the exact problems she was talking about. My question got her angrier and she accused me of trying to confuse her. She went from looking slightly deranged to looking menacing and dangerous. She was obviously hopped up on drugs. She talked to me for 20-30 minutes, mostly complaining about everything that popped into her mind. I started wondering if her neckbrace and walker were real. Many people were there with fake medical equipment-- and I blogged about one friendly right-wing lady who got out of her scooter and asked me to sit in it for her while she ran off to wave her sign, scream and demonstrate for a while. I don't know if the woman with the neck brace was a faker or not, but when I saw the YouTube yesterday I realized she and her partner were weaving quite a tale for the media. The claim that her injuries were caused by a liberal assaulting her on Tuesday were patently false-- a clear distortion to put the onus for violence of pro-health care supporters and remove it from the violent rightists who have been instructed about how to disrupt events. Her husband (or "husband")-- the one with the Nancy Pelosi cryptkeeper sign who was denying being "astroturf" or right-wing had his lines well memorized. They were exactly-- word for word-- what he had spouted off to me earlier in the week. In fact almost every single person speaking was speaking directly from prepared texts... word for word. The woman started quoting Saul Alinsky. Their goal: project their own failings onto SEIU, Acorn and liberals. Before you watch them spin, I see a post she did with her version of the "assault" (which is now being blown up into a story by far right blogs:
It's a lot easier for the media-- especially cable "news"-- to show a bunch of worked-up-into-a-lather maniacs parading around in tri-corner hats and calling themselves Jeffersonians, unaware that he was the epitome of a progressive in his day, than it would be to do the slightesy bit of analysis. Serious analysis might not be what their owners want to see on the TV screens anyway. When Obama told the town hall meeting in Belgrade yesterday that some insurance companies are trying to undermine his plans for overhauling health care by “funding in opposition,” he wasn't just making it up.
He was responding to an insurance salesman who challenged him on why the White House had decided to “vilify the insurance companies” by shifting its strategy from talking about reshaping health care to emphasizing changes in health insurance.
“O.K., that’s a fair question,” Mr. Obama told the salesman, Marc Montgomery of Helena. He went on to say that some companies have “been constructive,” citing Aetna, whose chief executive, Ronald A. Williams, is a major Obama supporter. Mr. Obama then criticized other companies, though not by name.
“Now, I want to just be honest with you, and I think Max will testify,” Mr. Obama said, referring to Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who is spearheading the Senate legislation. “In some cases what we’ve seen is also funding in opposition by some other insurance companies to any kind of reform proposals.”
The exchange underscored the delicate line Mr. Obama is walking in taking on the insurers. As public forums held by members of Congress have grown raucous this week, many Democrats have accused insurers-- who oppose Mr. Obama’s call for a government-sponsored plan-- of sending protesters to the events.
It was the last question and the president specifically asked for a skeptic. Watch the interaction:
Today the McClatchy papers asked who exactly is behind the attacks, organized attacks by demonstrators who have been well-drilled with GOP/Insurance Industry talking points memorized, against health care reform. And they attempted to answer that question as well. Believe me, this isn't something you can expect to see on CNN let alone Fox. Over $10 million has been spent on TV and radio ads so far and much more than that on lobbying, legalized bribes to members of Congress and astro-turf activities across the country's media markets by GOP front operations like Patients First, Patients United, Americans for Prosperity, Conservatives for Patients' Rights, FreedomWorks, 60 Plus, and, of course, Club for Growth.
Much of the money and strategy behind the so-called grassroots groups organizing opposition to the Democrats' health care plans comes from conservative political consultants, professional organizers and millionaires, some of whom hold financial stakes in the outcome.
If President Barack Obama and Congress extend health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it, and limit insurers' discretion on who they cover and what they charge, that could pinch these opponents.
Most of them say they oppose big government in principle. Despite Obama's assurances to the contrary, many of them insist that the Democrats' legislation is but the first step toward creation of a single-payer system, where the federal government hires the doctors, approves treatments, sets the rules and imperils profit.
...Conservatives for Patients' Rights is led by health care entrepreneur Rick Scott, the co-founder of Solantic urgent care walk-in centers, which he's spread across Florida and is looking to expand. While 80 percent of its patients have at least some insurance, Solantic also bills itself as an alternative to emergency-room care and a resource for patients with no insurance.
Scott left his job as CEO of the Columbia /HCA hospitals during a federal Medicare fraud probe in 1997 that led to a historic $1.7 billion settlement. He wasn't prosecuted and got a golden parachute.
Solantic's growth, Scott said in a telephone interview, is due in part to the trend in which "deductibles and co-payments are going up. As that happens, more people want us."
Scott said he wasn't concerned that the Democrats' proposed revisions would undercut his business: "It's irrelevant to us." Instead, he said he opposes the Democrats' plans because he doesn't believe that government involvement will contain health care costs. He sees it killing off the best private insurance plans and ultimately leading to a single-payer system, which he predicted would lead to waiting lists and denial of treatments.
Scott said he supports some government intervention-- such as preventing insurers from dumping sick patients. Those who can't afford coverage on their own should get vouchers or tax credits, he said.
FreedomWorks, which has been advocating against the overhaul but has not launched TV ads, is chaired by Dick Armey, the former Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives from Texas.
But also noteworthy are the group's other backers and board members. They include billionaire flat-tax proponent and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes; Richard J. Stephenson, who founded Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which offers alternative as well as standard therapies, sometimes not covered by insurance; and Frank M. Sands, Sr., chief executive officer of an investment management firm whose offerings include a Healthcare Leaders portfolio.
"They're on our board because they support lower taxes, less government and more freedom," said FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon.
Matt Kibbe, the chief executive officer of FreedomWorks, said its members believe that "the government is already way too involved in the nation's health care system" and that government is to blame for health-cost inflation.
Kibbe acknowledged that private insurance is out of reach for many small businesses and individuals, but he contended that can be dealt with without creating a government-managed exchange. Like Scott, he expressed concern that more government interference would lead to a single-payer system, which would "inevitably" impose rationing of treatments to contain costs.
Patients First and Patients United are creations of a larger group called Americans for Prosperity. AFP's Web site describes a grassroots organization with more than 700,000 members that advocates "for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint."
It was started by billionaire David Koch, of the Koch Industries oil family, one of the country's top donors to conservative, free-market causes. The foundation's board includes Art Pope, a former North Carolina legislator also involved in conservative causes, whose family owns hundreds of discount stores.
Tim Phillips, AFP's president, is a former Republican congressional staffer who helped former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed start up the consulting firm Century Strategies in the 1990s. Clients paid the firm to build Christian grassroots support for various business causes. That included work for since-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The group, along with FreedomWorks, was involved in promoting the anti-tax "tea parties" earlier this year. AFP also is organizing a campaign "exposing the ballooning costs of global warming hysteria."
In an interview, AFP's Phillips said that he couldn't think of anyone on his board with a direct financial stake in the health care industry. "It's more freedom-based," he said. "They have a deep interest in protecting economic freedoms." He also said that no one in his organization believes that more government involvement in health care will lead to reduced costs for taxpayers.
By Labor Day, he said, his group will have organized 600 rallies on health care.
"Americans are looking at these rallies that are happening and the town-hall turnouts, and they say, 'No one group out of thin air could do that,'" Phillips said. "The American people can see through the attacks on the other side, where they try to vilify these groups as being corporate groups or front groups. They're believing it is in fact a broad groundswell.
"We're out here saying the truth, which is costs are going to go up and quality is going to go down. And what's the other side saying? 'Oh, these are front groups, these are all rich people.' The attack route's not going to work. It's not so far."
Two other grassroots groups have financed ads targeting peoples' fears that more government involvement would hurt seniors and hasten end-of-life decisions.
One of them, Club for Growth, which advocates lower taxes, is led by president Chris Chocola , a former Republican congressman from Indiana who lost his re-election bid in 2006. Club for Growth this week announced a $1.2 million ad campaign against a health care overhaul, to run in North Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas and Nevada.
The other, 60 Plus Association, is a conservative senior advocacy group that wants to abolish the estate tax. Singer Pat Boone is the group's national spokesman. Chairman Jim Martin started the group in 1992 with fund-raising help from conservative direct mail guru Richard Viguerie. It spent $1.5 million on TV ads opposing a healthcare overhaul in the last week.
Martin declined to identify his major donors.
Re-reading Rick Perlstein's brilliant opus, Nixonland, last night, I came across an old quote from then Michigan's popular Republican Governor, George Romney (father of Mitt): "America's the cult of rugged individualism [is] 'nothing but a political banner to cover up greed.'" He was right then but he'd be even more right today; it's a lesson his greed-obsessed son never learned though. And it flies in the face of a Republican Party committed to the status quo and to serving the interests of the country's wealthy elites.
But if Nixonland's 850-some-odd pages is too daunting for a summer read, you might consider Perlstein's article in tomorrow's Washington Post, In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition, putting the anti-health care hysteria ginned up by desperate Republican Party officials and greed-obsessed Medical-Industrial Complex executives into historical context.
So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers-- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president-- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs-- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.
In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason" and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House "found in the files a blueprint for socializing America."
When John F. Kennedy entered the White House, his proposals to anchor America's nuclear defense in intercontinental ballistic missiles-- instead of long-range bombers-- and form closer ties with Eastern Bloc outliers such as Yugoslavia were taken as evidence that the young president was secretly disarming the United States. Thousands of delegates from 90 cities packed a National Indignation Convention in Dallas, a 1961 version of today's tea parties; a keynote speaker turned to the master of ceremonies after his introduction and remarked as the audience roared: "Tom Anderson here has turned moderate! All he wants to do is impeach [Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren. I'm for hanging him!"
Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn't lack for subversives-- anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and '50s.
The instigation is always the familiar litany: expansion of the commonweal to empower new communities, accommodation to internationalism, the heightened influence of cosmopolitans and the persecution complex of conservatives who can't stand losing an argument. My personal favorite? The federal government expanded mental health services in the Kennedy era, and one bill provided for a new facility in Alaska. One of the most widely listened-to right-wing radio programs in the country, hosted by a former FBI agent, had millions of Americans believing it was being built to intern political dissidents, just like in the Soviet Union.
...The orchestration of incivility happens, too, and it is evil. Liberal power of all sorts induces an organic and crazy-making panic in a considerable number of Americans, while people with no particular susceptibility to existential terror-- powerful elites-- find reason to stoke and exploit that fear. And even the most ideologically fair-minded national media will always be agents of cosmopolitanism: something provincials fear as an outside elite intent on forcing different values down their throats.
That provides an opening for vultures such as Richard Nixon, who, the Watergate investigation discovered, had his aides make sure that seed blossomed for his own purposes. "To the Editor... Who in the hell elected these people to stand up and read off their insults to the President of the United States?" read one proposed "grass-roots" letter manufactured by the White House. "When will you people realize that he was elected President and he is entitled to the respect of that office no matter what you people think of him?" went another.
Liberals are right to be vigilant about manufactured outrage, and particularly about how the mainstream media can too easily become that outrage's entry into the political debate. For the tactic represented by those fake Nixon letters was a long-term success. Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim. If 1963 were 2009, the woman who assaulted Adlai Stevenson would be getting time on cable news to explain herself. That, not the paranoia itself, makes our present moment uniquely disturbing.
It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist"-- out of bounds.
The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills-- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard-- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."
Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill-- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.
So far in the still very early current election cycle the Insurance Industry has been the 8th biggest donor of thinly veiled bribes to members of Congress. They've given just over $7 million out to senators and House members-- where they have lots of friends, having spent $319,651,132 on direct "donations" since 1990 plus another $1,269,279,506 on lobbying just since 1998! Look at that number again-- over 1.2 BILLION dollars. Why do you think they're spending that kind of money? Because they're patriotic and civic minded? Among the top 15 biggest recipients in the Senate are all the most vocal opponents of reform: Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $73,650), Richard Shelby (R-AL- $61,550), Robert Bennett (R-UT- $59,900), Evan Bayh (DLC-IN- $57,400), Blanche Lincoln (DLC-AR- $55,250), Mike Crapo (R-ID- $54,400), Richard Burris (R-NC- $46,950), Jim DeMint (R-SC- $45,800), John Ensign (R-NV- $45,526), and, despite not even being up for re-election next year, Insurance Industry's biggest shill, Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $36,000).
You have a similar situation in the House, where of the 15 biggest recipients nine are either leading the charge against reform or working behind the scenes to sabotage it: Melissa Bean (D-IL- $78,050), Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND- $69,500), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA- $66,500), Eric Cantor (R-VA- $65,400), John Boehner (R-OH- $64,800), Ron Kind (D-WI- $62,350), Spencer Bachus (R-AL- $47,500), Ed Royce (R-CA- $43,900), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN- $41,750).
Don't assume we're saying every single one of these sell-out corporate scumbags should be lined up against a wall, etc. We report; you decide.
Why Are Most Republican Elected Officials Backing The Violent Thugs?
>
Early on August 5th, as the corporate-funded, Limbaugh/Beck incited violence was just starting to roll, John McCain sent out a tweet: "Town hall meetings are an American tradition - we should allow everyone to express their views without disruption - even if we disagree!" He led; few in his party followed.
Thursday evening South Carolina Republican Congressman Bob Inglis-- first elected in 2004; re-elected last year with 61% of the vote-- went a step further. Inglis is a mainstream conservative with a fairly lockstep party-line voting record. But he's more in the Lindsey Graham camp than the KKK/Jim DeMint camp in South Carolina politics. Thursday he felt the wrath of the KKK/Jim DeMint camp when he held a town hall meeting to talk with his constituents about health care reform, which he opposes. The 350 constituents who showed up oppose it too-- but they oppose a lot more than just health care reform and they were hell bent on having their say.
The loudest part of the crowd seemed to have its mind made up before Inglis even began talking scolding him and applauding anyone who referenced the Constitution or denounced socialism. A man against the wall held a sign that stated Congress & CNN have awakened a sleeping giant.
One man stood up, said he considered himself a mainstream conservative and said, "I look at the government, and they're so far outside the Constitution and there's not a week that goes by that I don't hear talk about revolution in our country. The only one I know in Congress who abides by our Constitution is Ron Paul."
A standing ovation followed.
...Inglis had to point out that he did not think health care was a right, and he even had to remind people that he was a Republican, not a Libertarian. He did say, when asked, that if the current health care plan passes, he will opt out of the plan he has by virtue of his office and join the rest of us.
But the crowd was restless.
At one point, Inglis had to say, "You may not believe me, but I really don't have any secret plan to get you vaccinated."
Revved up by pent-up, self-righteous rage, too much Fox News, and enabled by corporately-funded astro-turf operations, many in the audience were looking for trouble. One man started screaming that "There is no way, shape or form we need to have a national healthcare system. No! Nothing!! None! It's got to stop now!" They heckled and shouted down Inglis even as he tried to tell them he opposes the health care legislation the Democrats are trying to pass. (By the way, if you're interested, in how badly South Carolinians are doing health care-wise and how the proposed legislation would help them specifically, there's a very informative report from the Center For American Progress, explaining, among other things, that South Carolina's uninsured rate has increased by 17% since 2007, that there are 760,000 uninsured people in the state and that the average family premium there will rise from $12,659 to $21,602 by 2019 without health care reform. Not the kind of information Inglis was interested in giving or this audience would have been receptive to in the slightest.) Instead they wanted to talk about forcing immigrants to be sent back to their countries, about the dangers of Obama declaring martial law, about Obama forcing them to get vaccinated, and about the horrors of Big Government. Inglis was mercilessly boo-ed when he suggested that in some cases government can play a positive role in people's lives.
But the most calamitous moment in the meeting came when someone in the audience asked about fear mongering by Hate Talkers like Glenn Beck. "What I would suggest," said Inglis, "is turn that television off when he comes on." The place exploded in rage and many got up and left-- in effect, turning off Inglis, not Beck. Watch the video of an uncomfortable conservative Republican congressman facing his fascist base, reaping what his party has sown. Later Inglis talked with a local blogger who asked him if people exploded because he had used the word "fear-mongering" in relation to Beck:
“Probably,” Inglis said. “That’s what he does. That’s what Glenn Beck is all about. And Lou Dobbs. I’ve had the misfortune of listening to those shows a couple of times... I don’t listen often to Glenn Beck, but when I have, I’ve come away just so disappointed with the negativity… the ‘We’ve just gone to pot as a country,’ and ‘All is lost’ and ‘There is no hope.’ It’s not consistent with the America that I know. The America I know was founded by people who took tiny boats across a big ocean, and pushed west in tiny wagons, and landed on the moon. That’s the America I heard on the streets of Boiling Springs... The America that Glenn Beck seems to see is a place where we all should be fearful, thinking that our best days are behind us. It sure does sell soap, but it sure does a disservice to America... If Walter Cronkite said something like Glenn Beck said recently on the air, about the president being a racist, Cronkite would’ve been fired on the spot. But I guess the executives of these cable news shows are more enamored with the profits that come from selling this negative message than they are with undermining the faith of people in this wonderful constitutional republic.”
This morning I was on the phone with a very different kind of politician than Bob Inglis. Doug Tudor is a retired career Navy man who is running for Congress in the Polk County area of Florida, a seat being abandoned by Adam Putnam and also being contested by a far right Republican and an only slightly less far right Blue Dog. Doug is a progressive who very much believes in the good that government can do in people's lives and in the need to bring health care reform to this country. He's a grassroots candidate-- with no corporate funding-- and I want to ask you to read his account of a health care town hall he attended last week and then to think about donating-- even if only $5 or $10-- to his ActBlue page:
"During Kathy Castor’s healthcare town hall meeting on Thursday night, I sat in the second row with my 14-year-old daughter, Hannah. I saw firsthand the hatred and violence being aroused by the orchestrated efforts of the rabid right. Ms. Castor had no more said, 'Good Evening,' when the booing, cursing, and shouting began. Taking firm middle ground, trying to talk about the benefits of reform for small business owners, retirees, and families, she never completed a full sentence due to the volume of the fanatical right. Shouting turned to shoving which turned to fistfights. It was a grotesque display of the ability of misinformation to turn people, whom I guess are otherwise decent folks, into brown-shirted thugs on behalf of insurance industry profits. The leaders of the Republican Party, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, need to take an unequivocal stand against the hate speech being spewed by Limbaugh, Beck, and their ilk. If not, they can hold themselves personally responsible for the violence that will eventually befall one of our legislators. As for me, I will no longer allow my children to attend political functions out of concern for their safety."
Members of Congress have death threats issued against them, while other Members make jokes about lynching their colleagues.
With all of this hateful and violent rhetoric going on, I haven't seen one Republican leader asking for people to cool their rhetoric, or heard them condemn any of these tactics. My question for Republican party, and their allies at conservative media companies that employ the kind of people making these remarks: what exactly would have to be said for you to distance yourself from these people? How far would someone have to go before you got uncomfortable with it? What would have to said before Fox News considered firing someone?
If Glenn Beck actually directly called for the assassination of someone, would it bother you guys? If Rush Limbaugh just screamed a racial insult referring to the President of the United States into his microphone, would it make you pause at all? If Lou Dobbs went so far as to call for the murder of random Hispanics in the street, would CNN consider firing him? If Michael Savage actually encouraged a caller to his show to go blow up a federal building like Timothy McVeigh did, would any Republicans suggest he pull his rhetoric back a bit?
Are Glenn Beck And Rush Limbaugh Inciting Political Assassination On The Public Airwaves?
>
The radio stations and TV stations that have these people on the air should lose their broadcast licenses and their advertisers should be boycotted. If someone else gets murdered by some sociopath, the way George Tiller was, it will be too late. Listen to Frank Schaeffer, ex-right-wing fanatic and author of Crazy For God:
UPDATE: Dangerous Drift
Is our country on the brink of a fascist breakdown? After reading Dave Neiwert's alarming and incisive new book, The Eliminationists, I got worried. This morning a Kos diarist highlights Campaign For America's Future's Sara Robinson's report-- an analytic treatment of our current drift into what Robinson sees as a pre-fascist America on the brink of the abyss. Worth reading-- and Dave's book, each available at the two links directly above. And if you don't think Republican Party officials are encouraging-- and inciting-- this, you are sorely mistaken.
For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."
