Listen to this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window
Election Day in Wisconsin is less than two weeks ago. Early voting is underway. And the Democratic Party is nowhere in sight.
The DNC issued a tepid response to the recent outcry of their lack of monetary support by stating that Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would head to Wisconsin "by the end of the month" to hold a fundraiser. From what I hear, they need money, not a visit from Debbie!
After attempting to call the DNC offices earlier this week (I got no answer), I sent an email in which I promised to re-register with No Party Affiliation (or possibly even going over to the Green Party) if the DNC didn't come through with enough financial assistance to make a difference. I got the following email in response:
Nicole,
Thank you for contacting us with your concern. The Obama Campaign and the DNC are fully committed to helping Mayor Barrett win next month’s recall election in Wisconsin, which will be an important victory for working families across the Badger State.
Governor Walker has turned his back on the middle class and on Wisconsin workers, wholly embracing Mitt Romney’s failed economic philosophy – one which says that if we provide even more tax breaks and giveaways to the wealthiest few, paid for by slashing critical investments in health care, education and job creation for hardworking Americans, then everyone will be better off.
It’s the same tried-and-failed approach that has allowed Walker’s millionaire and billionaire backers, like the Koch Brothers, to keep doing phenomenally well while leaving the middle class in the lurch.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has spoken to Mayor Barrett and has pledged the DNC’s support for his successful election next month.
She will host a fundraiser for Mayor Barrett later this month, and the DNC will utilize both its substantial network of activists, volunteers and supporters and extensive online resources to assist in building the ground game that will win on Election Day.
In addition, we continue to work with the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the Barrett Campaign to determine how we can be a key partner in taking back the governor’s office for Wisconsin Democrats and giving middle-class families across the state a much-needed fresh start.
Cheryl Green
Democratic National Committee
Really? That was the best they could do. And when I attempted a follow-up all yesterday, I couldn't get any further than the receptionist who, when I asked her if the DNC had given any money to the Wisconsin recall effort, answered that she was not able to give me any information.
Today, I send a Direct Message on twitter to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (yes, she does follow me). I wrote:
@DWStweets: people are very upset that DNC has not contributed $$ to Walker recall. I'm in for Randi Rhodes tomorrow. Will you come on with me?
No answer as of yet... But I will be filling in for Randi Rhodes tomorrow, so tune in to find out if she ever responded...
Money isn't the only area in which the Dems in Wisconsin are at a disadvantage. The other is time on the publicly owned airwaves. This morning, I spoke with Sue Wilson, director of the documentary Broadcast Blues, and founder of the organization Media Action Center who has been monitoring the airwaves in Milwaukee and concluded, based on five local talk shows on two radio stations, that Media in Milwaukee is totally unfair and unbalanced. The Scott Walker Recall Talk Radio Project's findings were pretty astounding (though not unexpected):
There's a lot more, and I encourage you to read their findings thus far.
I know many people believe that, since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished once and for all last year, there's nothing we can do about this. Those people would be wrong. There is still such a rule on the books known as the Zapple Doctrine that deals with political elections. As BroadcastLawBlog.com explained in the wake of the Fairness Doctrine's demise,
What remains unknown about yesterday's announcement from the Chairman is just how far this repeal goes. While certain corollaries of the Doctrine - including the political editorializing and personal attack rules - have been specifically mentioned in press reports as being repealed, the one vestige of the doctrine that potentially has some vitality - theZapple Doctrine compelling a station to provide time to the supporters of one candidate if the station provides time to the supporters of another candidate in a political race, has never specifically been abolished, and is not mentioned in the Chairman's statement. Zapple, also known as "quasi-equal opportunities", has been argued in in various recent controversies, including in connection with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, when Kerry supporters claimed that they should get equal time to respond should certain television stations air the anti-Kerry Swift Boat "documentary." We have written about Zapple many times (see, for instance, here, in connection with the Citizens United decision). What would be beneficial to broadcasters would be a determination as to whether Zapple has any remaining vitality, as some have felt that this doctrine is justified independent of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps that clarification will come when the full text of the FCC action is released.
While this action has been greeted by some as confirmation that we will not see the Fairness Doctrine revived by the Commission, that jubilation seems a little unwarranted. If there was a future FCC that decided that they wanted to impose some degree of Fairness obligations on broadcasters, they still would have ways of doing so. After all, broadcasters are subject to an overall obligation to operate in the public interest, a standard that has, over the years, changed as Commissions change their interpretation of what it means. As we've written before, some would like to put more teeth into the standard, which could include some Fairness-like requirements. Section 315 of the Communications Act, dealing with equal opportunities for political candidates, itself has language that implies that there is some sort of Fairness obligation of broadcasters, at least in connection with their news coverage:
Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
That's what Sue Wilson and the Media Action Center are pushing for - a declaration from the FCC on just what an "obligation to operate in the public interest" actually means, and a ruling on how the Zapple Doctrine should be upheld. To be continued....
In the second hour, I got to tell John Fugelsang just how much I enjoyed seeing Guilt: A Love Story last weekend here in Ft. Lauderdale, and what a great job he did filling in for Eliot Sptizer last night on Current TV. He's in again tonight, so catch him there, and on Stephanie Miller's show tomorrow morning.
And don't forget, I'm in for Randi Rhodes again tomorrow afternoon, 3-6pm ET. Talk to you then!
Listen to this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window
At the start of today's show, I was sounding like the eternal optimist. I said that my faith in humankind has been restored due to the amazing response I've gotten from my plea for help with funds to get my daughter into a program this summer that she truly needs.
But by the end of the program, after talking with Jesse LaGreca, best known for his schooling of a Fox producer at OWS' Zuccotti Park - though everyone should read his MinistryofTruth blog at Daily Kos, and WhoWhatWhy.com's Russ Baker, I was as pessimistic about the future of our country as ever.
In the middle, I placed a call - yet again - to the DNC, asking why they haven't given a dime to help support the recall of Scott Walker in Wisconsin. You can call too - 202-863-8000!
Tomorrow, the role that right wing talk radio is playing in Wisconsin, and comedian/actor/pundit John Fugelsang!
Listen to this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window
As I read Chris Hedges latest, "A Victory for Us All" aloud on the show this morning, I was reminded -yet again- of the classic "I'm not dead yet" scene from Monty Python & The Holy Grail. (For a brief moment, I even regretted ripping up a pocket copy of the US Constitution on my show this morning, after recounting the story about activist being arrested in Chicago and the distinct possibility that they may have been set up and charged as domestic terrorists.)
As Hedges so beautifully explains,
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional. It was a stunning and monumental victory. With her ruling she returned us to a country where—as it was before Obama signed this act into law Dec. 31—the government cannot strip a U.S. citizen of due process or use the military to arrest him or her and then hold him or her in military prison indefinitely. She categorically rejected the government’s claims that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the case to trial because none of us had been indefinitely detained, that lack of imminent enforcement against us meant there was no need for an injunction and that the NDAA simply codified what had previously been set down in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act. The ruling was a huge victory for the protection of free speech. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote. Maybe the ruling won’t last. Maybe it will be overturned. But we and other Americans are freer today than we were a week ago. And there is something in this.
So, no, we're not dead yet. But we can't stop fighting because, as Hedges concludes
It is not going to get better. The climate crisis alone will assure that. The corporate state knows what is coming. Globalization is breaking down. Our natural resources are being depleted. Economic and political upheavals are inevitable. And our corporate rulers are preparing a world of masters and serfs, a world where repression will be our daily diet, a world of hunger and riots, a world of brutal control and a world where our spirits must be broken. We have to stop asking what is reasonable or practical, what the Democratic Party or the government can do for us, what will work or not work. We must refuse now to make any concessions, large or small. We must remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil. We must no longer let illusions pacify us. Hell is truth seen too late. In large and small ways we are called to resist, resist, resist, as we race heedlessly into the abyss.
So I will continue to report on the unreported (by the corporate media), and speaking with people on the front lines of the fight for democracy. This morning, I did speak with PunkBoyinSF, a citizen journalist from the San Francisco Bay area, from Chicago where he's been for the NATO protests. He told us of police raids and the militaristic manner in which protesters and activists are now treated. For more of his coverage of what went on in Chicago, as well as the latest on the Occupy movement in the San Francisco Bay area, visit punkboyinsf.org.
Tomorrow, we'll continue our series of conversations about the occupy movement with Jesse LaGreca!
Because we need joy, love and some pleasurable diversions in life, I spoke with author W. Bruce Cameron about his new book, A Dog's Journey. It's the sequel to the equally delightful A Dog's Purpose. If you're a dog person, as am I, you should read these books.
If it's Tuesday, it's a visit with The Political Carnival's GottaLaff. Today, we talked about these stories and more:
The Most Dangerous Women in America, Then and Now
Imagine no filibuster option
VIDEO: Lie O’ the Day, Paul Ryan edition
In the defense authorization bill: Legalizing propaganda, misinformation from our own government
Mitt Romney pledges to give Americans more “opportunities to hunt, shoot… their families.”
Whitehouse.gov “Presidents” page features a couple of special fun facts about Ronald Reagan
Birther Madness: Iowa Republicans take “a shot” at Pres. Obama’s citizenship in party platform
Listen to this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window
Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Chicago this weekend railing against, among other things, the fact that Mayor Rahm Emanuel authorized a remarkable $55 million to host the NATO summit, while a measly $2-3 million dollars is all it would take to keep some community mental health facilities open in that city, yet that funding has been cut.
The Center for Research on Globalization notes
THE U.S. national security apparatus is mobilizing astonishing numbers of police for the NATO summit--and creating an atmosphere of fear meant to permeate the city of Chicago.
"Police officers from Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C.; will assist the Chicago Police Department in handling thousands of protesters expected to descend on Chicago for this weekend's NATO summit," according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
More than 500 National Guard troops will be activated alongside 3,100 Chicago police assigned to NATO security and 700 Illinois state troopers. The total number of armed personnel in Chicago this weekend could top 5,000.
The cost of the summit is officially estimated at $55 million, but the actual costs of hosting such summits usually exceed the projections. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has attempted to mute criticism of the outlandish expense of hosting the summit by insisting that it won't cost taxpayers because city officials are appealing to "corporate citizens" to cover the costs through donations.
Meanwhile, Chicago is pushing through the closure of half of the city's mental health clinics for poor and uninsured residents--despite an inspiring campaign by mental health advocates and activists organizing against the closures.
If Emanuel has such ready access to corporate cash, why can't he scare some up for mental health care? The city says the closure will only "save" $3 million--though it may not even be that after taking into account the cost of treating mental health patients in emergency rooms or city and county jails. Some of Chicago's "corporate citizens" could find that in petty cash.
That's just one issue out of many that brought a number of diverse groups of protesters to the Windy City.
Some were veterans, giving back their medals; some were nurses protesting our insane health "care" system; some were students mired in student debt while others were would-be students without the resources to get an education. And on and on goes the list.
Citizen and credential journalists were roughed up by the Chicago Police, and the world leaders met, seemingly oblivious to the wants and needs of the world's citizens.
Meanwhile, down here in South Florida, I took a very difficult step in asking publicly for help to get help for my daughter. You can read the whole thing here (helpmehelpmydaughter.wordpress.com) if you like, but basically, we're all struggling with her ADHD and I don't know where else to turn. I found out about a great treatment program run by FIU that will teach her how to "do school" and teach me how to help her.
The rub is the cost. Some private insurance plans cover it, but hers doesn't. And my finances won't cover what it costs...
Many of the issues that had people in the streets in Chicago this weekend and had me blegging for help from South Florida could be assuaged simply by ending the endless wars, returning the tax rates to what they were under Clinton, and stopping all the corporate welfare.
In the meantime, life goes on. I still believe the best path to change in this country is with an inside/outside strategy. The OWS movement is rocking the outside part of it, but we need to get together and elect as many real progressives as possible to local and state office and certainly to Congress!
This morning, I'll speak with Digby who is one of the people behind the Blue America PAC. We'll talk about this, and specifically the wonderful candidate from California's 2nd district, Norman Solomon.
And, as it's Monday, we'll spend the second hour with Crooks & Liars' Nicole Belle, finding out how the Sunday shows covered these issues... or not. Here's her write-up for today:
It was a mixed bag of memes the Sunday anchors went after this week. All of them pushed the general election horse race, which frankly, is much closer than it should be, which is just the way the media likes it.
So that’s why Candy Crowley didn’t guffaw right in the face of RNC Chief Reince Priebus when he said that it’s all President Obama’s fault that we know a superPAC was putting together an ad supporting Mitt Romney that raised once again the specter of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Next I expect Priebus to blame black people for racism and battered wives for domestic abuse'
And when George Stephanopoulos asks the Leader of the biggest do-nothing House of Representatives about his failure of leadership, it is of course, not his fault. John Boehner likens controlling his own caucus (his own, mind you, not the minority party) to 218 frogs in a wheelbarrow.
Ayn Rand’s biggest disciple (though not officially) Paul Ryan tells David Gregory we can avoid European-style austerity by cutting spending. No, that’s not a joke. Ryan thinks that his ending Medicare as we know it and slashing transportation and education will actually pre-empt austerity.
Note to the Obama administration: when you send out a surrogate to the Sunday shows, make sure they don’t sandbag your messaging. Just as Cory Booker did by dismissing the vulture capitalism of Bain under Mitt Romney’s control. Booker got so much pushback from outraged liberals on Twitter and in the blogs that he felt compelled to respond with a special video later in the afternoon.
And finally, because I think it needs to be said, Howard Kurtz spoke to former Daily Show field producer Mike Rubens, who wrote a blog on Salon saying that he was surprised to learn that he couldn’t bring himself to hate some of his subjects, despite finding their political viewpoints absurd at best, and evil at worst. Kurtz was more interested in him saying that liberals could be jerks too, but I think the entire interview—the very notion that it’s surprising that someone who doesn’t share your political views could still be a reasonable human being—plays to everything that’s wrong with our society. It is a reductive. cartoonish mind that thinks people are all good or all bad. Dick Cheney and I share similar outlooks regarding gay rights than President Obama and I do. Don't hate people. Hate their actions. If someone advocates a policy or position that brings harm to millions of people, I really don't care how personally lovable they appear.
Listen to this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window
I've spent the past few days lamenting the loss of our first amendment. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It pains me to put it down in black and white, but it's dead on all levels.
As we discussed earlier in the week, the part about freedom of religion is now null and void. It seems as if the religious right has usurped the rights of the rest of us. Just scroll down a couple of days and watch a bit of Mitt Romney's address to the graduates at Liberty "University" in which he said, "There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action."
What about Jewish conscience, or Muslim conscience or human conscience? No, unless you are Christian, they tell us, you do not deserve to be president... Sad.
Now on to the second part
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Apparently, that's gone too. As more and more documents are released thanks to FOIA requests by people like my friend Jason Leopold at TruthOut, we learn that our tax dollars are being used to fund a crackdown on these constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Just last week, Jason got another batch of documents from his - the first FOIA request of DHS from a news organization for documents relating to Occupy Wall Street. He wrote about what was uncovered, and joined me this morning to discuss it.
While we learn to what lengths the surveillance of activists goes and the depths of the channels in on authorizing it all, we wait for more clampdowns on our First Amendment Rights this week, as the NATO Summit convenes in Chicago.
Truthout will be reporting on it, as will Allison Kilkenny for The Nation, and many others. We'll follow the action from here, and recap events as they happen on the show next week.
But there may be hope yet. As the bodies are being picked up in Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes the pleas of one poor soul "I'm not dead yet"....
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Glenn Greenwald reports, to my great relief, at Salon.com, that one courageous federal judge is not willing to write off our constitutional rights... not yet, anyway. in his piece, "Federal court enjoins NDAA," Greenwald tells us of a lawsuit brought by seven plaintiffs (including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsburg and Noam Chomsky!),
"...alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
I urge you to click here and read, with great wonderment and hope for the future (as I did aloud on today's show), the rest of the piece... but a few glorious excerpts:
The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.
... As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities....The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.
... Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.” (Ed Note: WOW!)
... Perhaps most importantly, the court categorically rejected the central defense of this odious bill from the Obama administration and its defenders: namely, that it did nothing more than the 2001 AUMF already did and thus did not really expand the Government’s power of indefinite detention. The court cited three reasons why the NDAA clearly expands the Government’s detention power over the 2001 AUMF..."
Again, do read the entire piece, and remember the immortal words of the not quite dead guy from Monty Python...
I hope to have Glenn Greenwald on the show next week to discuss this further, and have yet another request in for Chris Hedges to come on as well...
Our right to free speech brings us the wonderful John Fugelsang most Thursdays. If you're in South Florida, I expect to see you at the Parker Playhouse this Saturday night to watch John's one-man show, Guilt: A Love Story!
