Thursday, February 13, 2020

The Resistance to Sanders Is Led by Cable News Anchors


Click through to the source for the video

by Thomas Neuburger

There are growing signs that the resistance to [Sanders'] campaign will be led by cable news anchors.
—Alex Shepherd, The New Republic

The "Resistance" has been almost clichéd to death these days, bludgeoned into meaninglessness. Nancy Pelosi has been leading a "resistance" to Donald Trump that includes approving all of his spending and expanding all of his war and domestic spying powers.

"Every single day,"she wrote via Twitter, "I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump personally, financially, & politically?" But that doesn't stop her and the rest of Democratic Party leadership from giving him almost all the money and power he wants, stopping only at approving the worst of his policy choices, such as war with Iran.
"Wow!" [Trump] said on Twitter. "All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA: Pay Raise for our Troops, Rebuilding our Military, Paid Parental Leave, Border Security, and Space Force! Congress – don't delay this anymore! I will sign this historic defense legislation immediately!"

The establishment of the U.S. Space Force as the sixth Armed Service of the United States, under the Air Force, fulfills one of Trump's most high-profile requests.

Despite broad bipartisan support, a handful of left-leaning Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans opposed the measure because it did not include policy planks that would have restrained Trump's war powers, including a ban on support for Saudi Arabia's air campaign in Yemen.
Some "Resistance" to the man Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called "the most dangerous and worst man in the presidency we have ever had in the history of this nation."

The Real "Resistance"

The real resistance by Democratic leaders, of course, is to its own base of anti-Establishment voters, candidates and office-holders, a resistance that's been too well documented to be repeated here. One of those candidates, Bernie Sanders, is right now making a credible threat to take over the Party in the name of that anti-Establishment base — an outcome that all donor-defending Democrats look upon with horror.

But what can they do, aside from the odd and opportune tilting of the balance? If they declare outright war — instead of the obvious but pretend-covert war they're now waging — they risk making a mockery of their own battle cries, Blue No Matter Who and Unity Unity Unity.

Enter the next line of defense, the Party-supporting mainstream press, including and especially cable news channels CNN and MSNBC. The real resistance for now against the Sanders-led revolt against the swamp in which they all swim has been handed off to Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper and all the colleagues and "analysts" who occupy million-dollar seats on TV's cable news stations.

Alex Shepherd is by far the only person to have spotted this, but he's one of the few mainstream writers to point it out. In a piece for The New Republic, Shepherd says:
Bernie Sanders Has an MSNBC Problem

Cable news networks, particularly the "liberal" one, are a growing barrier to his surging campaign.

...Sanders has framed himself as an outsider, taking on the political establishment as a democratic socialist. But as he has surged in the polls—he now leads Biden with all voters—he is increasingly running up against another establishment: the media, and particularly cable news.

Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party was aided by a coup at Fox News. After some early turbulence, Fox quickly got in line and has become something like state TV, an echo chamber for the president’s point of view. Sanders has fewer natural allies in cable TV. In fact, the supposedly liberal network, MSNBC, has become a serious obstacle, pumping out Republican anti-Sanders talking points with increasing frequency.

After last Friday’s Democratic debate, Chris Matthews waxed apoplectic about what electing a socialist could mean for America. “I have an attitude towards [Fidel] Castro,” he said. “I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, OK?” Matthews’s colleagues pointed out that Sanders was more of a Danish type of socialist than a Castro type of socialist, but to little avail.

Two days later, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former campaign guru, went on Morning Joe to rant about how a Sanders nomination would bring about the apocalypse. Literally. “The only thing between the United States and the abyss is the Democratic Party,” he said. “That’s it. If we go the way of the British Labour Party, if we nominate Jeremy Corbyn, it’s going to be the end of days.” The same day, Chuck Todd, who also hosts NBC’s Meet the Press, read from an article from the right-wing website The Bulwark comparing supporters of Sanders, who is Jewish, to “brownshirts.”
And in the lead-up to Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, Lawrence O’Donnell argued that the real story was that Bernie was losing momentum because his poll numbers were down from the last Democratic primary—even though he is now facing more than a half-dozen opponents, compared to 2016, when he faced one. “The story of the Sanders campaign so far this year is how much ground he’s lost from four years ago,” O’Donnell said. He also ignored the fact that Sanders is leading nationally, which wasn’t the case in 2016.

This is not a new phenomenon....
The Sanders surge is real. Most polling sites give him a greater chance to win the Democratic primary than any of his competitors, prognostications that have been validated by Sanders' clear win in New Hampshire, his arguable win in Iowa despite the obvious and questionable machinations of the Iowa Democratic Party (see "Orwell Goes to Iowa" for more), and the likelihood, as I write today, of his winning most of the Super Tuesday contests, including the one in delegate-rich California.

But as the Sanders campaign ups its game, the Cable News Resistance is upping theirs. Most recently, Chuck Todd has likened Sanders supporters to actual Nazis ("brownshirts"), and Chris Matthews, as Shepherd notes above, publicly fears being hung by the neck by Sanders-supporting "socialists" from a tree in Central Park, America's Place de la Concorde apparently.

The battle is clearly on. Who will win this "primary within the primary," this war of insiders against insurgents? Establishment-defending media, or the mass of voters (the actual real Resistance) who are putting their trust in Sanders to drain the DC swamp of creatures like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and yes, Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews?

Smart money is on Sanders to win the nomination (even David Plouffe agrees with that). If he does, how far will Establishment and donor defenders in the mainstream press, people like Chuck Todd, go to stop him in the general election?

Smart money is sitting that one out.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 9:20 AM, Anonymous ap215 said...

No wonder why the GOP in The Reagan Years wanted to get rid of The Fairness Doctrine & 1987 & Ajit Pai eliminating Net Neutrality they hate fairness & truth they only care about corruption & lies & this is where we're at now.

At 11:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are fighting for their jobs. If Bernie wins, it proves their influence is finished and their view of the world dated at best. Who is going to watch them? Who is going to buy advertising on such shows? Their bosses will have to retool or lose market share. The millionaire anchors all know that.

At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? You can call these people "News Anchors" They're just the the second channel available on The Fascist State Network". They're so exposed.

At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "news" anchors are doing what corporatism pays them well to do: herd the sheep.

I am amazed by how many otherwise smart people still think that "news" is about facts, especially when they decry how the media isn't covering so many of the huge scandals in any meaningful way. It doesn't take much investigation to understand that when a scandal is featured as "news", it is because the presented perpetrator is not a friend of the corporatists who own the media.

What Sanders represents to the media moguls now conspiring against him is a return to the time when "Fairness" was truly followed honestly. This means, among other things, reversing the effects -if not the language- of the 1996 Communications Giveaway, the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, and the break up of what now constitute monopoly media holdings and distributing ownership limited in the number of outlets held as was once the law.

That corrupt corporatists are working so hard to block Sanders is an indication that they take this threat very seriously. That is good. They need to fear. They have ruined this nation, and there are plenty of people -a significant percentage while not a majority- who are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

It remains to be seen if there are enough to accomplish what I see as a worthy goal. Woe betide us if there isn't, for this will be the end of real democracy as we've known it.

Corporatism will insist.

At 1:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

all media are corporations. they, like all corporations, invest lavishly on buying and owning both parties.

Bernie represents the final gasp of actual democracy -- people selecting their own leaders -- that those corporations fear and loathe. They want the orgy to continue.

What they are afraid of is Pelosi and scummer are going to be demanding even more, maybe multiples of what they've cost so far, in order to continue to serve them with total fealty.

"Smart money is on Sanders to win the nomination"

Here is where I wonder which pot-legal state this guy lives in. The DNC will not allow Bernie to get the nom. So far, Bernie has won 2 states but lags behind in delegates. And if the primary voters keep splitting more than 2 ways, he'll never get close to 51% of first-ballot delegates. Nothing different than '16, btw, but nobody is yelling "fix" the way those college students did in Liston-Clay II, though IA was just as obvious. It's like watching WWE rasslin fer fuck sake!

The convention is still rigged to go to a second ballot where the $uperdelegates can ensure a corporate-vetted and friendly nom, just like '16. And the DNC has signaled they are willing to revert back to '16 rules when the $uperdelegates could make the choice on the first ballot, if need be.

note: the first 2 states were LOST by pete, but pete has the most delegates. and I remind you that pete was a $uperdelegate in '16 and did his duty to vote for $hillbillary which was at odds with the preference in his home state. In short, pete ratfucked IN voters as his corporate owners wanted.

So ... smart money will get flushed. again.

one wonders if there really is any "smart" money.

At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched an interview of a voter in NH who said the reason she voted for Bernie is that she watched MSNBC all of the time and she didn't like the way they talked against Bernie. Hopefully, other voters/MSNBC watchers will think the same way.


Post a Comment

<< Home