First Post Debate Poll

We now have what appears to be the first post-Debate presidential poll. Details after the jump.The poll is an online poll commissioned by Reuters and conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. It's the same outfit doing the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll. [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/kAV2tQw7Db0/first_post_deba
te_poll.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Are the debates rigged Sure, but they're rigged
jointly by the two campaigns

"Voters are not allowed to know about the current backroom fix between Obama and Romney."
-- Ralph Nader, in a CounterPunch post,
"Rigging the Presidential Debates"
by Ken

What I really wanted to talk about tonight had nothing to do with the debates. It would have led off with a luscious Peter Steiner New Yorker cartoon with the caption ""On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." I had this idea that I could say just one thing about The Debate and then get on to some serious funny business. Then the one thing grew to two, and the two to three, and the three things called for some additional context, and then . . . .

Sigh. Okay, let's get to it. Remember that I'm speaking as a confirmed debate non-watcher. As I predicted, though, I was unable to fend off learning way too much about what happened. Here first are the original two things I wanted to say:

(1) Willard Inc. and his handlers demonstrated that it is possible for a man to get up in front of a national TV audience and not just lie his head off but at almost every point flatly contradict things he has said just as publicly and: (a) be lying both times, and (b) have nobody in the infotainment noozemedia notice.

(2) That the president's handlers were totally unprepared for the above is either a perfect metaphor for the way this administration has functioned or else merely business as usual for it.

As we're going to see, if the debate was "fixed," it was fixed jointly by the two campaigns. Obama's people sent him out to get skunked anyway. As Charles P. Pierce puts it in a shrewd Esquire post about the presidential skunking: "The only way that the wonkish, garbled, and distracted performance by the president makes any kind of sense is if the White House has internal polls that indicate that a majority of Americans believe that Willard Romney eats live chickens in praise of Satan."

Now here's the third thing:

(3) Do we know whether moderator Jim Lehrer was acting out of compulsions invisible to the naked eye which made most of the questions suitable for a well-armed liar like Willard while also omitting from the discussion almost every subject of actual important regarding domestic affairs? I think again of that mock Republican presidential debate staged by ACN anchor Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) on The Newsroom where Will as moderator asked real issues questions and in follow-up pressed each candidate stand-in for an actual answer.

As I pointed out, this is one of Aaron Sorkin's lovely romantic political fantasies, but he always designs those fantasies so that there's no good reason why they couldn't actually happen -- just the eternally cruddy but inescapable reason that that's the way things happen in real life. (Of course there are reasons for that.) I'm not sure much more was to be expected of Jim L, a tried-and-true Villager, and I don't imagine there was much chance of a more focused and focusing moderator being accepted by either side, let alone both sides. Still, it would be nice to know how much of the inept moderating was structural and how much was just Jim of the Village being Jim of the Village. (Actually, since writing this, I've been directed to some directly pertinent information on this subject. See below)

And here's that bit of needed context --

WITH REGARD TO WILLARD'S LIES . . .

I've always insisted that the second term of George W. (for "Who???") Bush evevntually fell apart not because the American public realized that it had been systematically lied to at every point during the Bush regime but because Americans became angry at the woeful quality of the lies they were being fed. It was, like, personally insulting to them. In line with their commitment to American exceptionalism, they had come to believe that America produces the best lies in the word -- no, in the universe -- and here they were being asked to swallow lies that wouldn't get past a slow-learning four-year-old.

And so, in accord with the gospel delivered unto them by St. Ronnie of Reagan, which told them that as Americans they're entitled to a reality that makes them feel good and never ever have to settle for any so-called reality that doesn't, they expunged the Bush regime from memory -- without, however, ever turning against either its policies or its procedures.

Similarly, the stumbling ineptitude of the Willard presidential circus to date has repelled many of those same Americans who are demanding nothing more than their a minimum standard in the lies they're asked to swallow. The danger is that if Willard's people have truly gotten their fabulizing act together, their guy is already immunized against charges of "flip-flopping," and accusations of "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" or the like will be unlikely to have any force, since that portion of the public's only question is apt to be, Does this candidate make me feel better about my reality -- or at least better than the crummy version of it we've gotten from President Obama?

JIM L MAY HAVE BEEN IN ON THE FIX, BUT IT WAS
PUT IN BY THE DEM AND GOP CAMPAIGNS THEMSELVES

On this subject Ralph Nader has an important post on CounterPunch, "Rigging the Presidential Debates," in which he takes us into the super-secret world of the secret contracts apparently written every four years by the two major-party campaigns and their "corporate offspring," the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The CPD, a colleague reminds us, was created after the League of Women Voters in 1988 withdrew from its previous sponsorship of the presidential debates, on the ground that, as league president Nancy M. Neuman explained,

the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Whoops!

Nader writes specifically of the 2004 contract between George W. Bush and John Kerry, obtained by George Farah, executive director of Open Debates (www.opendebates.org), who Nader tells us worked for him "over a decade ago, right out of Princeton before going to Harvard Law School." The contract specified that the two candidates would participate only in the agreed-upon debates under the agreed-upon candidates, with no other candidates ("in 2000 and 2004," says Nader, "national polls showed majorities wanting me in the debates -- the only way non-billionaires could reach tens of millions of voters -- but the captive CPD and their compliant director, Janet Brown, created other exclusionary barriers"), conditions that Nader points out would constitute a criminal antitrust violation if undertaken by two corporations. What's more, Nader says, "The Bush/Kerry closeout of the voters and the media extended to their agreeing not to ask each other direct questions but only rhetorical questions, and to clear any questions from the audience by their chosen moderator prior to the debates."

Nothing seems to motivate the mainstream campaign press into challenging the two Party duopoly, its definition of important questions, or the rancid corporate sponsorship of the debates down to the hospitality parties the corporatists hold at the debate locations in Colorado, New York and Florida this October. The reporters must like the free wine and food. . . .

Substantively, the supine press applies its own rules. Rule One is to avoid pressing questions that extend the public?s agenda beyond what the two major candidates are wrangling over. So if they don?t debate pulling back from unauthorized wars, invasions, incursions or other important foreign policy moves they are not asked. Rule Two is to ignore what major civic groups or groups with credible track records propose for the candidates to address. So Obama and Romney are not pressed by the press to expressly respond to many important issues including: what they would do on law enforcement against corporate crime, fraud and abuse, whether they favor a $10 minimum wage that catches up to 1968, inflation adjusted, for thirty million workers, or on their positions on either a Wall Street speculation tax that can raise big money or even a carbon tax.

Union organizing rights, workers? health and safety, and a variety of important consumer protections are scarcely on the press table even when their own colleagues often report on these timely subjects. . . .

"This year," Nader says, "voters are not allowed to know about the current backroom fix between Obama and Romney."

On the bright side, there doesn't seem any reason to think that voters would especially care.
#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/10/are-debates-rigged-sure-but-theyre.ht
ml

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Donald Trump, Mitt Romney's Small Business Guy

Click here to view this media

Contrary to popular belief, there were some excellent moments for President Obama in the debate. Unlike his opponent, the president actually had some factual statements to make about our current tax structure, and used Donald Trump to illustrate the fallacy of Willard's concern trolling over small business:

?Under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. Now, I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but -- but that's how you define small businesses if you're getting business income.?

Oh, the possibilities. But of course, the president is absolutely right. Just like Koch Industries is a small business. Lots of Mitt Romney's shell companies, even those in the Cayman Islands, are "small businesses."

I actually thought this was a good moment for the president, even though some others disagreed with me at the time, groaning that mentioning Trump would mean he'd pop up on the news cycle for another 24 hours. Hey, he'd show up whether he was mentioned or not. But I can't think of a more iconic representation of the self-absorbed nasty billionaire that resonates with the public than Donald Trump. So for me it was a winning moment.

Also, the crack about Trump not liking to think of himself as small anything was well...inviting. Imagine the snark we could raise over that remark.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/donald-trump-mitt-romneys-small-business-gu

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The Chronicles of Mitt: Oct 4, 2012

 Hello, human diary. It is I again, Mitt Romney, your better.

Success! This debate could not have gone better. I was not able to obtain any sleep the previous evening due to the noise of this nation's tremendous freight infrastructure, but given the results I have decided to cease all further sleep until after the election.

Sadly, I was not able to last the entire debate without firing someone. I believe I made it about half of the way, which would be a substantial improvement from my practice sessions, before mentioning to the moderator unit that I would be firing him. I also mentioned that I would be firing Big Bird, who is a beloved children's character on television, and in fact his entire network.

My staff was somewhat aggravated about this afterwards, as they had made it very clear to me that I was not to make any zinged statements about firing people, and the zinged statement about Big Bird had not been cleared by them beforehand. I explained to them that Big Bird is a bird and not a people, so that I had technically stayed within the allowed parameters. While I also told the moderator that he was fired, moderators are also not people. I am beginning to think my staff is getting too fussy about these things. Also, I have never liked Big Bird. That bird has never been the right height.

Sadly, the only zinged statement I was able to use was the one about firing the irritatingly large bird. The other zinged statements I suppose I shall save for later. Other than that, I am pleased that I was successfully able to avoid mentioning any policy details (I stated that mentioning my own policy details would not be bipartisan, and that politeness required that I refrain from discussing such things until after I have become president). There was also various other things mentioned, but none of them were particularly important, and I shall leave my staff to sort them out today. They seem to believe I have contradicted a large number of our past policy assertions, but Eric F. told them that they were stupid for being concerned about such things, because that is what debates are for.

I am looking forward to the next debate. During the foreign policy one, I believe I shall fire Canada. Canada is also not a people. I would fire Mexico, but the labor there is quite cheap, and I have been thinking of outsourcing some of our companies to them.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/YoMZug-0YTk/-The-Chronicles-of-Mit
t-Oct-4-2012

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Reuters Reporters Hit Job on a Recent Report on
US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

A blog post published by Reuters reporter Myra MacDonald and on the internet today highlights a recent report from clinics at Stanford University and New York University and argues the ?anti-drone campaign? is doing damage. It has been widely circulated[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/w_t55VbnaMA/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Shareholders pressure Murdoch to step down

News Corp. shareholders want Rupert Murdoch to step aside -- but for now, Murdoch isn't going anywhere.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/MQDAzK2cO1s/shareholders-pressure-m
urdoch-to-step-down.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The debate of magical thinking

Sigh. All right, let's do this thing.

Summarizing the debate: The only memorable sound bite of the evening was that Mitt Romney had promised to fire a television bird. On policy matters, we learned absolutely nothing, and due to constant (and, truly, egregious) misstatements any non-politically-inclined person who tuned in could probably count themselves as actually less informed on the discussed issues than if they had not tuned in at all. On style both participants were one small notch above dreadful?if the Romney face budged from his trademark, grimacing smirk during the entire evening, I must have missed it, and the president often appeared to be debating as if Mitt Romney was not in the room at all. As for policy differences?the presumptive reason for having these excruciating but necessary things in the first place, unless we have now abandoned that notion, too?those were not only not in the room, they may not have even made it into the same state.

It is all right to be terse, in these debates. God help us, not every detail needs to be gone into. A few of substance would have been nice, though, and how we managed to have an entire presidential debate with less content than either candidate put into their own acceptance speeches is a bit beyond me. We did indeed manage it though, and your average viewer tuning into the evening could be forgiven for assuming that the primary message of the Mitt Romney campaign was that their polices were, in a nutshell, magical, and that the primary message of the Obama campaign was the supposition that they were not. According to the challenger, through mechanisms that were far too complex to be specified, and policies far too dull to burden the public with, certain magical things would happen, trillions of dollars would come from nowhere, all of the good policies of government (whatever those were) would be saved and all of the bad ones (whatever those were) would be nullified, and nobody need worry their pretty little heads about one stick of detail.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/H6jfIcKxCTc/-The-debate-of-magical
-thinking

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Whiny Little Crybabies

By @TomBales1   I don't get to buy many books these days but I think I'm going to get this one.

Just got done reading a teaser for a book by Thomas Frank Called "Billionaires Are The Victims" in which he chronicles the Republican strategy of "victimhood".  This is their ultimate fallback position, their Plan B, wherein if they can't make a cogent point in support of their position and/or are asked for any kind of corroboration of whatever outrageous claim they have been trying to make, they launch into this weird little self pity drone state wherein they whine incessantly and "sorrowfully about how this nation of moochers and looters persists in making snippy remarks about the successful".  While he refers mainly to the rich themselves, those of us who don't have direct access to those types still deal with this "cult of victimhood" any time we let ourselves be conned into any kind of  conversation with their lesser turdminions at any level.

I know that anyone of you who has ever attempted to engage a far right wingnut in anything resembling a meaningful debate on the issues know that without fail, issues will go out the window and it will eventually come down to them playing the victim, usually claiming that you're stifling their right dissent by refusing to give credence (or space as the case may be) to their ideas and opinions or some such folderol but until now, none of the mainstream pundits and surprisingly few bloggers have taken the time to look at this aspect of their agenda.  The simple fact is that Marie Antoinette Ann Romney isn't unique in her belief that she and others like her are being victimized or persecuted by we hordes of unwashed commoners.

If you've been long time readers at They Gave Us A Republic then you might remember a couple of us quoting from various satirical posts by Jim Hightower bout how tough the filthy rich have had it during these trying times but even those, while wholly accurate, have been more in the humorous vein than attempts at serious discourse about the the fact that the victim card along with the calculated failure to observe any of the niceties and amenities of formalized or even mildly civilized debate... much like Mr. Romney failed to do last night... is an integral part of any conservative's portfolio of debate or discussion tactics and will invariably be brought out any time they feel that they are falling behind on "points" or otherwise are losing control of the proceedings.  Remember Pat Nixon's cloth coat?  As Mr. Frank puts it:

I admit that I was impressed at first by the unconflicted way in which these proud voices of the strong-these hymners of Darwinian struggle, of the freedom to fail, of competition to the death-advanced their war on the world by means of tearful weepy-woo. But then I started to get it: self-pity is central in the consciousness of the resurgent right. Depicting themselves as victimized in any and every situation is not merely a fun game of upside-down; it is essential to their self-understanding.

...

Indeed, there are few political or cultural situations in which the right doesn't instinctively reach for the mantle of the wronged, holler about bias, or protest about how unfairly they've been treated. It goes on even in the most improbable precincts. Army generals must be consoled. And former majority leaders of the House of Representatives need your sympathy.

And it carries right on down to the most lowly little Twitter or Facebook political trolls.  As long as they're allowed to run rampant, saying anything that pops into their pointy little heads no matter how far from factual it might be, they're happier than pigs in mud.  But just challenge on of them on the sources of their material or ask for some real verifiable numbers that support whatever hyperbolic generalization they've just hacked up and spit out or just simply disagree with something they've said and all of a sudden the entire tenor of the exchange changes and now you're bullying them, the usual accusation being that you're somehow "not allowing them to state their opinions" or at best refusing to take them seriously.

I don't do it anymore.  I refuse to allow these type of people access to my Twitter timeline and I've pretty much hidden or blocked most of those on Facebook who regularly post at worst, outright lies and at best, unsupported claims and or innuendo with little or no basis in fact mainly because at my age, life's too damned short to be playing fifth grade he said/she said games. If I'm going to engage, then I want to see facts, numbers, and links to raw data unfiltered through someone else's idea of context and the LAST damned thing I want to hear about is how mistreated and picked on you are because I had the flipping gall to challenge some bullshit statement you made on MY dime.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/P1Dd1mFl7k0/whiny
-little-crybabies

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Here Is How A Soccer Penalty Kick Should Be Lined
UpA Penalty Kick Is A Good Solution To Righting A Wrong

I don’t follow soccer, but I attended a Houston Dynamo soccer game a few months back and took this picture of a penalty shot taking place. I looked at this picture again a few days ago and noticed that it was likely a good picture of how a penalty shot should be lined up. All [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/here-is-how-a-soccer-penalty-kick-sh
ould-be-lined-up-a-penalty-kick-is-a-good-solution-to-righting-a-wrong/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mitt Romney's vision for America is one we cannot
afford

During last night?s debate, Mitt Romney said he would not make cuts that would harm education, but the Ryan budget he intends to sign into law does just that. Romney said he wouldn?t reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans, but his tax proposal does just that. No matter how many times Romney shakes his etch-a-sketch, the facts remain the same. No matter how often he tells the American people he has a plan, he still refuses to give any specifics other than killing off Big Bird. That?s not a vision for America?s future that we can afford.

Nothing in the past 24 hours has changed Romney?s vision for America. The Mitt Romney who showed up for last night?s debate:

• Tried to portray himself as a champion of the middle class, but defended tax cuts for big corporations and the rich.  
• Said he believes in an America in which we care for one another, but we know the real Romney sees 47 percent of Americans?including veterans and people receiving Social Security?as unworthy of their government?s time, care or attention.
• Posed as a defender of the consumer against Wall Street, yet the real Romney would remove regulations that protect consumers from big banks and Wall Street.  
• Tried to be all things to all people, claiming he will look out for seniors and champion the middle class, but the real Romney would ?voucherize? Medicare and repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, leaving seniors and the middle class to worry every day whether the next illness will put them and their families further away from financial independence.
• Said he likes teachers and is not for cutting education, but the real Romney supports the Ryan budget that will lead to long-term spending reductions in education. He dismisses the importance of small class sizes and wants to cut funding for teachers.
• Correctly touted Massachusetts? public schools, but he failed to note that the teachers in those schools are represented by the same unions he said he?d use the U.S. Department of Education to push back against.  

One thing remains unchanged after the debate last night. President Obama has the right vision for America and a real plan that will help ensure everybody has a fair shot at success. The AFT is supporting President Obama because he:

• Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which protected critical public services and saved or created 400,000 education and public service jobs.
• Made higher education more affordable and accessible by increasing the number of Pell Grant recipients from 6 million to 9 million.
• Says we should stop teaching to the test and give teachers the flexibility to teach a full range of real-world skills to students.
• Signed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to cover an additional 30 million uninsured Americans, guarantee insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, allow parents to keep their children on their insurance plans until age 26, and close the Medicare prescription drug coverage ?doughnut hole? for millions of seniors.
• Supports collective bargaining rights for all workers, and opposed the anti-worker attacks in Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire.
• Championed women?s rights in the workplace by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on his first day in office.
• Wants to end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and end subsidies for big oil companies, and supports making large corporations and the richest 2 percent of Americans pay their fair share of taxes.
• Provided loans to the U.S. auto industry, saving 1.4 million jobs and reviving the now thriving American auto industry, which is adding jobs to the economy.

Elections are decided by actions large and small?by every door knocked, every work site visited, every AFT member and family member talked to and mobilized. The AFT has a well-deserved reputation for the strength of our member engagement and mobilization program. It is because we know that turning our folks out can help decide the elections that are so important to them, their families, the people they serve and their communities. This election is no exception, and for the next 34 days, our collective efforts must be focused on re-electing Barack Obama.

In Unity,

Randi Weingarten, AFT President

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2012/10/mitt-romneys-vision-for-a
merica-is-one.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!