Not to go all Joyce Carol Oates on the Democratic Party's ass, but What Are They Saying, What Do They mean?
Seriously. The NSA hearing where Alberto Gonzales got butterfly kisses and reach arounds -- what the hell was that?
Bully Boy says he authorized illegal warrantless spying for "national security" and instead of taking on the issue, every Democrat has to attest their firm support for spying when it comes to "national security." Yeah, there was a "but" there but here's a but for the Dems: nobody listens after you agree.
After you agree, the issue, whatever it is at the moment, is no longer an issue. Instead any dialogue is just about how to address the accepted issue.
So warrantless spying becomes not about that, but instead about "national security." Way to hand over your wallet, your keys, your shoes and your dignity in one day! FDR must look down and smile proudly!
Well probably not, but you probably aren't ready for some hard truths.
Let's note Alexander Cockburn's "How Not to Spot a Terrorist" on last Monday's hearings:
As they reviewed the NSA data mining, a prime concern of the Democrats was the potential liability of U.S. phone carriers (who poured money into their campaign treasuries in 1996 to purchase telecommunications "reform"). They didn't question the very premises of the data mining. Is this strange? Not in a world where the New York Times can publish an article, as it did on February 8, on the Democrats' failure to gain popular traction, in which the difficult words "war" and "Iraq" never intruded.
Yeah, along with accepting the debate on the Bully Boy's terms, it was also hard not to notice the effects of lobbying. Strange considering how Abramoff (a lobbying scandal) is being seen as the salvation of the 2006 elections for Dems.
About those upcoming elections . . .
Let's note Katha Pollitt's "Band of Brothers--Brother!" on the slate of military vet candidates:
The theory is that as former soldiers they will be immunized against Republican charges that Dems are unpatriotic girly-men who are "soft on defense." (As "Mask" points out in the comments section of Ari's post, running as a vet worked so well for Max Cleland and John Kerry!)
One thing the Band of Brothers strategy will do if it succeeds is to help keep Congress white and male. Of the 56 candidates currently marching under the brotherly battle flag, only three are women. (One of the three, Mishonda Baldwin, is also the only African-American).
So I guess the Dems are giving up on that whole gender-gap equality thing.
[. . .]
Do we really want to promote the idea that military service is some kind of necessary item on a political resume? That personal machismo is a qualification for office? The BOB strikes me as a gimmick, if not an outright pander to militarism and sexism--time for the daddies to retake the mommy party! Chaaarge! And yet more proof, ladies, that the Dems are writing you off.
Couldn't be said more loudly and more clearly. Maybe we're all just mishearing the Party? Like we misheard Joe Lieberman in November 2000, on Meet the Press, where, despite the fact that we live in a democracy -- based on one person, one vote -- some votes count more than others? Pandering to the right-wing and not sticking up for American's rights, Lieberman was happy to sell out the recount on national TV just to look a little "moderate." (We firmly believe history will note how foolish he looked and how undemocratic his remarks were.)
Robert Parry (a journalist we all respect) has an article entitled "The Democrats Tiny Megaphone" at Consortium News. Forgetting that no one in their right mind gives a microphone to anyone suffering from stage fright (as the Dems seem to be suffering), we understand the points Parry's making. The right-wing has created a media system. They've funded it. It's part of the spin and drives each day's story. So why doesn't the left fund the institutions that have sprung up? (The wealthy ones.)
Well, and this may be a shocker for some (we don't think Parry will be shocked), left doesn't equal Democratic Party especially when we're dealing with a spineless one that's selling out the base. Parry mentions the Air America Radio network as an example of left media.
A founder (once on the odds, then brought back in) came out to the California hat in hand. He tells that story all the time and, honestly, people are starting to lose sympathy for him. He told it again in a letter to The Nation not that long ago. But there he was and he was shocked that the entertainment industry didn't want to fork over money to his unproven network.
The man's a nice man, according to one of us, and it was a nice pitch, ditto, but it didn't sell.
It didn't sell because you're dealing with an industry that was attacked by the vice-presidential nominee in 2000, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. (Maybe he took the "vice" in the title he was seeking too seriously?) Was that payback for Warren Beatty's "right on the money" remarks? Whatever it was, it offended people. And it offended them in 2002 and 2004 and offends as we go into this year's elections that principles are tossed aside to win the approve of the right-leaning center.
Not the center. The center, the bulk of the population, favor rerpoductive rights (including abortion). It's the center-right that's being sought.
So when the man made his pitch, people were skeptical that the proposal would really be about the left. They're no longer skeptical, they're just disinterested. Air America Radio, with few exceptions, is not "liberal radio." It is a place where any centrist, soft Dem can win praise. It is the place where a lobbyist can be treated with kid gloves and not face any hard questions.
It's the home of Baby Cries of Lot. They made him the face of the network, they promoted him as such and if you think liberals or progressives enjoy hearing his whines (with and without tears) of how we have to stay in Iraq because soldiers have died there and he has children . . . (Around then, he usually chokes up so much that no one can understand what follows. However, none of his children are in the service.) Baby Cries A Lot is the "entertainment industry" in someone's eyes but not in the California based section. He hasn't been rolling in film leads ever. (The SNL film was an SNL film. Initiated and driven by Lorne Michaels and Broadway Video, via NYC.) Outside of his failed series (plural), did you see him on TV? When there was a season finale or sitcom's final episode, did you see "funny man" among the mulititude of guest stars dropping by? No?
There's a reason for that.
Laura Flanders partnered up with The Nation for her radio show much to the relief of many who were wondering if they should start betting when one of the few voices of the left would be pulled from the network? Since the purging of Lizz Winstead, it's gotten Whiter, it's gotten more male, and it's gotten more "center-right."
As it now promotes a live video feed of Michael Stipe performing live and available to all . . . for a fifty dollar contribution/membership, no one's surprised it's struggling for money. It's become the mouth piece for leadership in the Democratic Party. A Party that's made an anti-abortion member the Senate minority leader. A party that's decided the spawn of Bob Casey (a bean counter's kind of Democrat) is the way to go in 2006. The Party and their little weasels attacked activists and loyalists like Victoria Hopper. That didn't go unnoticed.
What's the big joke these days? That the next round of fundraising letters from the Party will begin, "Dear ATM, . . ."
On this and the magazine front, we all heard about this in DC when we were there for the September protests (except Wally who didn't make that trip). We heard it at parties, especially when Mike made the mistake of asking two big names which alternative media they donated to.
Outside of Pacifica Radio and The Nation, no one's too high on alternative media because it's not an alternative. It props up the squishy, no backbone leadership in the Democratic Party. Or it rushes to bring on squishy writers for Newsweek. (Or worse, The New Republic.)
The Progressive was a magazine that two people involved in the writing of this editorial were pitching to friends as worthy of donations. It was a hard sell because some people don't think that a monthly can have any influence. They think that, by the time a month rolls around, the magazine's dealing with many issues that have already been settled. But the strong opposition to the invasion/occupation was stressed and people were getting interested enough to actually look at the magazine. Then Baby Cries A Lot makes the cover. End of interest. (As he stated in that cover story, he's not that left.) (As with Robert Parry, everyone involved in the writing of this editorial has tremendous respect for The Progressive.)
Joan Didion's written of the disenchantment the entertainment industry has had with the Democratic Party. She wrote of that a few years back and it's only grown stronger as the Party has moved further (corporate) right. That may please corporate donors (who'll no doubt ask for further concessions) but it doesn't please the entertainment industry (the ones making the money, not living off stock options given to them).
In Parry's piece, he makes a point that we grasp but, remembering the tirade Mike got when he brought up so-called alternative media, we'd suggest that if he's looking for any entertainment industry money (we assume he's not), he avoid justifying "triangulation" for any reason. That nonsense sold in the first half of Clinton's first term when everyone was being told it was the way to "sell" the issues. Then you saw health care go down in flames and the ban on gays in the military remain. (Don't Ask, Don't Tell didn't lift the ban, it just allowed those who serve to be closeted.) And that was before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which resulted in a lot of lost jobs. Want to create your own TV show? You better have a hit on right now to use for leverage -- otherwise be prepared to fork over at least partial rights to a network.
Now in another era, and this isn't forgotten, the monopoly that the studios had was broken up. They weren't permitted to continue owning the movies and the theaters they were shown in. Something had to give and it did. Following the 1996 Act, in the entertainment industry, jobs went out the window on the creative end as well as in the news industry. And anytime a new show with a moderate following gets axed by a network which keeps a lower rated show they own or co-own, it's an issue all over again.
We doubt Parry was asking was for entertainment money. But for those who are (or those who keep whining that the entertainment industry wouldn't put up for their project), here's a few tips. Your "heartland" "progressives" that are weak on core issues but you continue to prop up with soft coverage, that's not winning hearts and minds from the people whose big dollars you want. When you promote anti-choice candidates or elevate them if they're already in office, that's not going to get the entertainment monies flowing in. When you make a point to prove how "reasonable" you are by staying silent in the face of attacks on the entertainment industry or, worse, join in, probably not a good time to come begging hat in hand for a donation.
Whether you think people in the entertainment industry are overpaid or not, the fact is that the majority started out where the base is and they can relate to them a lot better than the leadership currently does.
Here's a bonus tip, legs who cover the entertainment industry are not part of that industry, they are members of the press. So when they launch broadsides at certain people, probably a good idea not to rush in and agree with them -- at the very least.
You can sneer as you toss around words like "Hollywood" (do you think the use of that word makes you a player?) but the bean counters aren't secretive. They may not note in when they're speaking to progressive or liberal media, but they've noted it publicly elsewhere. What do they note? That they're not worried about the decline in voting. That they'd rather appeal to the right-wing potential swing voters than offer any real issues that might excite those who've stopped voting and increase the overall turn out. The bean counters make those speeches all the time. If progressive media reported those speeches the way the mainstream press does, if they really highlighted those remarks, some of the "heroes" might have to bow out or join the Republican Party they're so determined to ape. Comments about watering down stances to peel off some of the Republican voters might not let you come off so "tough" as you insist that we all "fight back." In fact, it might lead to the base fighting against you.
The programs those types disown didn't start in the much maligned sixties. Most were part of FDR's New Deal. He was elected president four times. Consider that a clue that the programs couldn't have been that unpopular. The issues that have arisen since then (from civil rights to women's rights to, yes, gay rights) aren't the anchors you spin them to be. They could easily reach people and encourage them to vote, if you stood for them. But it's easier to water down the differences between the two parties for the bean counters (who've been mistaken for leaders). They can manage and massage a tiny electoral turnout. They can deal with that in their "on message" single message that says "I'm just like my opponent except for . . ."
That's what we heard in last Monday's hearings. That's what we hear in the new slate of candidates. We don't think we need hearing aids. We believe the message is coming through loud and clear.
The illustration at the top of this editorial is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts from last Sunday.