Michael Moore the go-to on Republicans? We watched in open mouthed amazement. There it was on display, the fetishes of the left 'leaders' that repeatedly hold the movement back, the bias and the discrimination that they so willingly embrace, all there for anyone in the public to see. If they bothered to catch it.
We almost missed it. After we finished speaking Tuesday night about the Iraq War, we rushed back to the hotel, put the TV on CNN, pulled up CBS on one laptop and ABC on the other to catch the streams on them (we were Tivo-ing NBC at home) while we were listening to PBS's coverage. This will be the piece, we just knew, that would capture the full flavor of the mid-term elections. Then a former network anchor phoned and, after he stopped laughing, asked us if we'd caught Free Speech TV's coverage?
No.
We quickly dropped the CBS stream and picked up FSTV.
"There's the hope and the hopelessness, I've witnessed thirty years,"
Joni Mitchell sings in "Heijira" -- though it sounded to us like she'd caught FSTV as well.
For many, Michael Moore being brought on as the 'expert' on Republicans might have been the telling detail explaining the vast ignorance exhibited by so many of our 'left' media personalities. Moore explaining what the Republicans and the Tea Party wanted -- to his credit, he got that they were not one and the same, something which frequently eluded Nation magazine scribbler Richard Kim -- underscored how uninformed the left currently is.
Michael Moore is not a Republican. Why is he explaining Republicans to viewers?
Why were any of these non-Republicans allowed to speak?
It made no sense.
Nor did 'journalist' T.R. Reid when he was 'explaining' objections to ObamaCare (he used that term) which he insisted was just that the right called it "a government take over of health care." He went on to brag that people weren't aware that now the insurance companies "can't drop you" but, pay attention, T.R., what people objected to the most about ObamaCare is that they're being forced to buy insurance. That's what the lawsuits were about, T.R. Now you can dance happy over the fact that consumers can't be dropped but the reality is consumers can't drop their insurance either -- unless they want to pay a heavy fine. (And possibly face charges. We may roundtable on that this edition.)
In DC, Latoya Peterson was interviewing 'informed' voters on the left and 'left.' There was Danni and Tin Beat. Tin Beat didn't vote. He did whine that his parents couldn't vote due to not being citizens. And he whined that he couldn't vote. Cause he forgot to register after he moved from California. Gosh, Latoya, thanks for those informative interviews. Want to share how you picked out who to interview? Oh, wait, we'll get to that and to all of Latyoya shortly. She managed to interview Nadia who said, "This tea party nonsense is crazy and it's scary." To prove her point apparently, Nadia then burst into laughter and Latoya joined her. She would then add, "I don't really understand the platform."
Nadia, you could have watched the entire six hours of Free Speech TV's coverage -- we did, twice! -- and still not understand the Tea Party platform. That's because no one was on who could explain it. For example, Thom Hartman attacked the Tea Party for Russ Feingold's Senate loss, insisting that Feingold voted "against the Patriot Act and these people say they're opposed to big government!"
Hartman can only successfully flaunt that ignorance in an echo chamber. The Tea Party, pay attention, believes in national security -- as any serious study of the movement has demonstrated. As a diverse movement, there are no doubt some opposed to the Patriot Act; however, for many it was needed legislation. We don't think that way, we think it's unconstitutional. But we're able to leave our own comfort zone long enough to grasp that not everyone thinks like we do.
That task is too much for Thom Hartman. And it was another Thom, last week, who demonstrated how important it is that the left starts understanding the Tea Party. There was Thom Shanker, of
The New York Times, on the second hour of Friday's
The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) trying to co-opt the movement into calling for cuts to social programs by passing off the military's budget desires as facts and not wishes. There was the other Thom who gets that the Tea Party is concerned with "national security" and was attempting to hijack that concern with some outlandish claims -- including that the nation couldn't be safe without a heavily financed military.
Four out of ten Americans told pollsters -- as ABC and CBS repeatedly informed us Tuesday night -- that they were supportive of the Tea Party. Even allowing that they meant 'sympathetic' to, that's a large number. And yet the left has refused to dialogue with all of those people, it has written them off repeatedly (and falsely) as "racists" and "idiots" and "stupid" and "Tea Clanners."
That latest was Chris Raab's 'contribution.' Yes, it's coded language . . . about as hidden as one of Mr. Furley's sexual innuendos on
Three's Company. But it's all that could be bought from Raab. It's always strikes us funny when a foundation baby has the nerve to attack others as being funded by this or by that. In other words, Demos-fellow Raab sounded a lot like a bratty teen still living at home and slamming his parents for what they do for a living.
Chris Raab was in Denver and it was the rare Denver segment that didn't include him (we counted one segment without him). Kai Wright was in NYC and he was all over their segments -- as was Herb Boyd and Rosa Clemente. In DC, there was a segment where Marc Steiner spoke to Glen Ford and two other African-Americans and, of course, Latoya Peterson co-anchored.
Why are we bringing that up?
We laughed at it for most of the coverage. We laughed at the tokenism of it.
"Look at us!" FSTV was proclaiming in their coverage. "We're wonderful."
We laughed knowing that African-Americans only make up 13% of the voting electorate. But they were close to 50% of
Free Speech TV's hosts and guests. In addition, there was Gloria Neal (anchoring some of the Denver coverage), there was Sara Haile-Mariam, there was Wellington Webb (whining that people were attempting to "emasculate" Barack), there was Leslie Herod . . .
On and on, it went. And we might have kept laughing were it not for Granny Panties wearing Latoya Peterson deciding she could speak for Latinos.
But there was Latoya -- looking like the overweight kid in the "Unpretty" video -- insisting that she, an African-American, could speak for Latinos.
Bear with us just one second. Throughout the six hours, the repeated lament is that the Democratic Party didn't do enough to reach voters, key voters, voting groups. They'd always note the youth, they'd always note African-Americans. Every now and then a crumb would be tossed out for Latinos.
But did FSTV want to reach Latinos?
Seems to us if you want to reach Latinos, you include them. Juan Gonzalaez co-hosted -- with Laura Flanders and Amy Goodman (translation, he barely got a word in) -- a few hours of the NYC coverage (then Laura and Amy were left to fight each other for the remaining hours). In Colorado, Vanessa Martinez wasn't on to express her opinion. Gloria and David Sirota and tons and tons of guests could express their opinions, but Vanessa was reduced to reading questions off Facebook when called upon. At one point, David Sirota actually asked her a question. It took him over 37 words to ask a basic question. Her reply was three brief sentences and then she quickly went back to asking questions left on Facebook.
Where were the Latinos?
Why weren't they invited to the party?
It was hilarious to hear repeatedly on FSTV that the Democratic Party's not reaching them.
The Democratic Party's not reaching them? Free Speech TV's not reaching them.
There were two Asian-American guests (Richard Kim and Mother Jones' Suzy Kihmm), there were two Latinos (Gonzalez and Martinez -- neither a guest and only Gonzalez -- briefly -- a host) and there were a lot -- a lot -- of Whites and a lot of African-Americans.
Excuse us, is that really reflective of the country's demographics?
No, it's not. And with Latinos being the exploding population, they damn well should have been front and center but no one thought to book a Latino as a guest.
Let's be really clear here because Latoya Peterson has cognitive issues: Puta, shut your damn mouth about Latinos.
Is that clear enough?
She doesn't know what she's talking about and it's insulting that she thinks she can speak for them. This happened not once but repeatedly. If you're not going to let Latinos speak, don't speak for them. Just shut your damn mouth. We hope that's clear.
Why were so many African-Americans on? Why were they so over-represented in the broadcast? It's a question that FSTV forces people to ask. Most -- Black or White -- wee about equally worthless. (We'd argue Glen Ford was more qualified than any one -- of any race -- on the six hours of coverage and one of the few people worth praising.)
But it's tokenism or, as the right would insist, "social engineering." It's not reflective of society.
And we're back to the 13%. We have to come back to that because Latoya made it impossible for us not to.
In DC, Latoya participated in a discussion with Marc Steiner, David Swanson and Norman Solomon. Only Norman bothered to provide even a slight push-back to Latoya's nonsense.
Her nonsense?
She noted throughout the evening that Barack and the Democratic Party were not living up to what was needed nor what was promised. At one point, she was mocking Gloria Feldt and others for saying that people had to vote and that they could hold the elected accountable after the election. That, said Latoya, was like giving your lollipops over to the playground bully hoping he won't beat you up. Yet Marc Steiner floats the notion of a progressive candidate challenging Barack in 2012 and Latoya goes spastic.
After Norman's agreed with Steiner, Latoya is pronouncing the idea "tantamount to a betrayal." What? Yes, according to Latoya, if Barack is challenged, it would be a betrayal. At this point, she once again wanted to speak for Latino voters. It was a thread that just didn't die throughout the broadcast which should have been billed as
For Latino Voters Who We Won't Allow To Speak For Themselves. It would be a betrayal "disappointing us," she said including Latinos in her 'us,' and "you need to give this man a chance!"
While David Swanson tried not to look at anyone and awkwardly sat in silence, Norman had the good sense to challenge her, "Well where is the betrayal? Are you saying he betrayed us or we're betraying him if we don't give him a second term on a silver platter?"
"I don't think we should give him a second term on a silver platter," insisted Latoya -- apparently eyeing plastic trays at the Dollar General instead. "I think we need to hold him more accountable. But I think if White progressives were to say, 'Okay now we're going to chuck this Black guy, we're going to get somebody else in, we're going to find an Edwards that doesn't have a scandal . . .'"
She never came up for air and we don't serve in her court so we'll cut fat mouth off right there to inject some reality. No one had identified a potential candidate -- not as male or female, and certainly not the race, How telling that Latoya automatically assumed it would be a White man. And how stupid is she? Edwards' run for the presidency wasn't brought down by a sex scandal. That scandal was covered up and only exploded long after he'd shut down his campaign. In fact, if he hadn't hid out in a hotel bathroom, he probably could have gotten away with the scandal. (Edwards, while married to Elizabeth Edwards, had multiple affairs. One such affair produced a child.)
Norman would point out that the candidate could be an African-American. To which Latoya wanted to insist, "We could take Rosa Clemente seriously." We could.
We suppose we could.
In 2008, we certainly did. Check the archives. Rosa Clemente was named as Cynthia McKinney's running mate July 9, 2008. Basically four months later, the 2008 election was held. That's approximately 16 weeks in which she could have been covered as a candidate. This site publishes weekly.
Check our archives and you get approximately 40 results, the bulk of that during the period when she ran. If only 16 articles had appeared mentioning, we still would have done a strong job covering her run -- especially since everyone writing for this site except for us declared for Ralph Nader in the election. This wasn't a McKinney-Clemente site.
"We could take Rosa Clemente seriously," Latoya Peterson insisted. But we did. We already did.
By contrast -- you knew there'd be a "by contrast," didn't you --
Racialicious?
Latoya Peterson's site has about five articles. Three of which mentioned Rosa during the time she was running for office. Well two. One of the three mentions was actually in a comment to an article by Latoya -- an article that didn't mention Rosa. Well one. See both September articles that show up in the search? Latoya didn't write about Rosa. People leaving comments did.
November 3, 2008, Latoya writes, "It's the day before November 4th [Election Day], and it occurs to me that we have not provided much coverage to other candidates outside of Obama." She claims that "my lack of posting does not mean that I have not been paying attention" to Cynthia and Rosa. But she calls Rosa "Afro-Latina" and Rosa rejected "Latina." We wrote about that during the 2008 campaign. So obviously, if Latoya didn't know that she wasn't paying attention. She appears to have written her only article solely because Women's Media Center did a piece on the campaign. (Finally did a piece on the campaign. We actively campaigned offline to get WMC to do a piece on the historic campaign. It required a lot of screaming and the threat that we'd do
more pieces like this one online if Cynthia's run wasn't covered.)
"We could take Rosa Clemente seriously," said Latoya -- apparently unaware how many of us already had.
Latoya, by contrast, refused to take Rosa seriously.
Don't push your blame off anyone else, Latoya, you own up to it.
But owning up would require growing up and that's why we have to talk about how tokenism is hurting the left. Norman -- and only Norman -- tried to fight back against Latoya's idea that Barack must be handed a second term and her lunatic assertion that Barack not getting a second term would be a betrayal. As he pointed out, "The people being foreclosed, they don't care what race the president is, the people in Afghanistan who are dying don't care what the race of the president is."
Latoya was having none of it, insisting, "It's not just about the race of the president on its face. It's a lot of the symbolism. It's about reciprocation. It's about feeling like Black people who are part of a political president. It's about little Black kids being able to touch Obama's head and say, 'My president has hair like me.'" And on and on she continued.
We don't need it. If her maturity level is such that the nation need suffer two terms of Barack Obama so that some mythical child can touch his head, that's on her and her stupidity and her immaturity. She sounded so much like Cokie Roberts in the late nineties insisting Bill Clinton must resign "for the children."
Barack's not even Black, he's bi-racial. Will Latoya tell those mythical Black children rushing up to touch Barack on the head -- that is a racist image Latoya's promoting -- that Barack's mother was White? Will doing so make it hard for these mythical children? Is that why we have to lie? As part of some grand social engineering scheme?
The tokenism needs to end right about damn now. Reality: 13% of the population. Not 50%. Not even 20. 13%. And Latoya wants to insist that we must give Barack a second term because otherwise it will be a betrayal. To Black children who apparently can touch his head now but will have to cease and desist when he is no longer president. (Point of fact, after someone stops being president, they're usually more available to the public at large.)
Latoya Peterson is immature and infantile. And she wants to turn the nation into a nursery. We're not going along with it. We're not David Swanson either, meaning we're not going to pretend it didn't happened and keep our heads bowed.
David did that, Marc Steiner pretended he wasn't there. Only Norman challenged the assertion, that idiotic assertion.
The President of the United States is not an inspirational figure or a source of worship. The woefully uneducated, such as Latoya, have succeeded in dumbing down the nation and turning Barack into the personal lord and savior. That's fine for the idiots but we're not playing that game.
If you're not up for the job, you're not up for the job. The reality is Barack was never up for the job. But surround him with toy radicals and let him recast himself from bi-racial to Black and suddenly he's the token so many left 'leaders' needed. They needed him to feel good about themselves, to get hard ons in bed, to prove something to others and themselves.
The 2008 election was never about Barack. How could it be? He had no qualifications.
And when people marvel over that and wonder how it came to be that he had so many lefty and 'lefty' media personalities eating out of the palm of his hand, you only had to catch Free Speech TV last week to see why.
Tokenism.
It was on display long before Latoya ran naked in the temple of her familiar. It was on display long before David Swanson wallowed in silence and White guilt. It was there every minute of the coverage. White, Asian or Black, all your guests and hosts were mocking White voters. That was allowed, in fact, that appeared to be ordered. And then came the cherry on the top of the tokenism, Latoya Peterson informing the world (Amy Goodman kept hailing it as "a global broadcast") that if Barack Obama didn't get a second term it would be a betrayal.
We're sick of living in a country where
Saturday Night Live can't joke about Barack the way they did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Can't? Try won't. We're sick of the tokenism, we're sick of the refusal to hold Barack to the same standard you'd hold anyone else who held the same position in the past.
In 2008, Tom Hayden and others declared there would be violence in Denver if Barack didn't get the nomination. Now we're told there will be sad, little children if Barack doesn't get a second term.
Golly, we have to wonder, what do they have planned to argue for a third term?
It's all about tokenism. And that's especially true in 'independent' media.
There's no real interest in equality among the White media personalities or the Black ones. If there was, someone damn well would have insisted that Latinos be part of the process. Didn't happen. That's because Whites drive the Beggar Media. Blacks get in as tokens and they're not trying to open the doors for others. No, they want to be sure they keep their seats at the table. So they play along as tokens and the biased system continues. (Look, boys and girls, we just explained how FAIR's
CounterSpin has three hosts -- two White men and one African-American woman but no Latino despite FAIR's repeated attempts to grandstand on Latino issues.)
The tokenism isn't going away. The victories might be. No one wanted to believe Scott Brown's election had any meaning back then. (We believed it.) No one wanted to believe that the Tea Party would have any impact. (We believed they would. And, look, unlike many third parties in this country, they actually elected candidates to Congress on Tuesday.)
We've noted the nonstop demonization of anyone who disagrees with Corporatist War Hawk Barack Obama as being "racist." Long before we did,
Bob Somerby has. He's repeatedly noted it, he's repeatedly noted how much of the electorate is Anglo White. And he does that to explain that the way the left media is conducting itself is turning off huge portions of the voting public.
But Bob's mistaken when he thinks this is by accident. That's exactly what they want on some level. It is not about winning elections. Winning elections requires that you stop screaming "racist!" at everyone you disagree with. They're not about to give that up.
The reality is they are the tokens -- they themselves are the tokens and they want to be.
They don't want to be like the country. Look at what Goodman hailed as a "global broadcast:" They set up a camera in Denver, in D.C. and in NYC. They took three calls from California and one from the state of Washington.
Global broadcast?
It wasn't even a national one.
It was tokenism. It was about being so-special they're not like anyone else in the country, they're so above it all. Which is how they could and repeatedly did mock and rage at voters across the country. At one point, they were attacking Oklahoma and Texas and we were especially confused on the latter because while the results of Oklahoma's ballot proposals had just been noted, Texas hadn't even been mentioned the whole hour.
Tokenism means they only book each other. They don't really want to know what Republicans think because they really don't want to engage with others. Besides, it's so much easier for them to just to invent Republican straw people to defeat.
So what if they're uninformed? They don't want to be informed. They want to continue living in their world where they awake to Frank Rich telling them they're beautiful (this world they're living in must not come with mirrors) and Rachel Maddow lullabyes them to sleep insisting they're righteous. "Look at us!" they want to insist. "We're wonderful." Such claims couldn't be made in a world with give and take, with free exchange -- thereby explaining the hermetically sealed 'independent' media.
If you're not getting it, this world was sent up by Woody Allen decades ago.
This is the world created in
Sleeper. And Latoya might allow that an Erno is needed . . . provided he was Black.
