Tax Cuts: why are average Americans so "blind?"

While I will always believe that the legacy of the Bush Administration has truly destroyed American democracy through their addition of far right-wing Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, their right-wing jilted Citizens' United decision has allowed -- and will continue to allow -- far more Republicans to have gained offices in November's past election than should have gained office.

Notwithstanding, it continues to "boggle my mind" how the average American continues to be blind to the Republican Party's consistent neglect and contempt of their needs on the Congress floor in exchange for always voting in favor of the wealthy. This was evident this past summer when ever Republican senator voted against extending unemployment benefits for the hard-working American who lost their job(Olympia Snow may have been the lone exception).

Yes, I would have loved to see tax breaks die for the wealthiest Americans, but I realize the Republican Party ALWAYS chooses party over country, and it may have not been possible.

What would have been really, really nice during Obama's first year in office when he had both Senate (non-filibuster) and House majorities was for him to have brought back the Fairness Doctrine for media. He could have shut-up those big mouths at Fox News and AM radio for good. I really don't know why he didn't do it.

 

 

Tax Cuts: why are average Americans so "blind?"

While I will always believe that the legacy of the Bush Administration has truly destroyed American democracy through their addition of far right-wing Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, their right-wing jilted Citizens' United decision has allowed -- and will continue to allow -- far more Republicans to have gained offices in November's past election than should have gained office.

Notwithstanding, it continues to "boggle my mind" how the average American continues to be blind to the Republican Party's consistent neglect and contempt of their needs on the Congress floor in exchange for always voting in favor of the wealthy. This was evident this past summer when ever Republican senator voted against extending unemployment benefits for the hard-working American who lost their job(Olympia Snow may have been the lone exception).

Yes, I would have loved to see tax breaks die for the wealthiest Americans, but I realize the Republican Party ALWAYS chooses party over country, and it may have not been possible.

What would have been really, really nice during Obama's first year in office when he had both Senate (non-filibuster) and House majorities was for him to have brought back the Fairness Doctrine for media. He could have shut-up those big mouths at Fox News and AM radio for good. I really don't know why he didn't do it.

 

 

Tax Cuts: why are average Americans so "blind?"

While I will always believe that the legacy of the Bush Administration has truly destroyed American democracy through their addition of far right-wing Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, their right-wing jilted Citizens' United decision has allowed -- and will continue to allow -- far more Republicans to have gained offices in November's past election than should have gained office.

Notwithstanding, it continues to "boggle my mind" how the average American continues to be blind to the Republican Party's consistent neglect and contempt of their needs on the Congress floor in exchange for always voting in favor of the wealthy. This was evident this past summer when ever Republican senator voted against extending unemployment benefits for the hard-working American who lost their job(Olympia Snow may have been the lone exception).

Yes, I would have loved to see tax breaks die for the wealthiest Americans, but I realize the Republican Party ALWAYS chooses party over country, and it may have not been possible.

What would have been really, really nice during Obama's first year in office when he had both Senate (non-filibuster) and House majorities was for him to have brought back the Fairness Doctrine for media. He could have shut-up those big mouths at Fox News and AM radio for good. I really don't know why he didn't do it.

 

 

An ongoing battle to ensure due process and keep families together

From the Restore Fairness blog-

Last Friday, Emily Guzman spoke at a vigil outside the Stewart Detention Center in Southwest Georgia where her husband, Pedro Guzman, has been held for over a year. Pedro was brought by his mother from Guatemala to the United States at the age of 8, and they stayed on after being denied asylum. He was arrested a year ago after his mother was denied a request to stay on in the country legally. Despite being married to an American, he has been kept in detention while fighting his case, with limited access to medical care and to visits with his mother, his wife and his four-year-old son, Logan. His wife Emily, who is an American citizen, spoke about the traumatic experience that her family has been through while Pedro has been fighting deportation from prison-

I never knew that the immigration system in the United States was so outrageously flawed until I began to experience it through my husband, Pedro is one of the very few fighting his case in immigration detention. It is a daily emotional fight for him to continue without his freedom.

Pedro’s story is just one of the myriad of reasons why human rights organizations and supporters marched to the Stewart Detention Center last Friday. The groups, including the Georgia Detention Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia, were seeking to draw attention to the “traumatic effects” that detention has on immigrant families. The marchers carried lists with the names of over 110 people who have died in immigration detention since 2003, including 39-year-old Roberto Martinez-Medina and 50-year-old Pedro Gumayagay who were detained at Stewart. This protest followed the release of a report by the Georgia Detention Center about the lack of transparency, accountability and due process at the Stewart Detention Center, which, as one of the largest (and most remote) detention centers in the country, has a vast list of human rights violations including lack of waiting periods of 65 days for cases to be heard, lack adequate medical care, and the imposition of solitary confinement without a hearing.

In addition to calling for the release of Pedro and the closure of the detention center in favor of alternatives to detention that are cheaper and more humane, the groups also aimed to highlight the “collusion between government officials and for-profit corporations to place profits and politics over people.” The overt connections between the massive expansion of the detention system and the direct profit made by private prison companies such as the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, which runs the Stewart Detention Center) were thrown into the spotlight when National Public Radio (NPR) did a story exposing the ties between CCA and the SB1070 immigration law in Arizona.

8 of the protesters, including Emily Guzman’s mother, Pamela Alberda, were arrested as they crossed over a ‘Do Not Enter’ tape at the entrance to the detention center. They were released on bond later the same day. Speaking about the impending protest and vigil, an ICE spokesperson said-

ICE fully respects the rights of all people to voice their opinion without interference. We recognize that our nation’s broken immigration system requires serious solutions, and we fully support comprehensive immigration reform efforts.

It is a relief to know that in the midst of this glaring lack of due process and fairness, a modicum of justice also exists. In what is a significant victory for immigrant rights activists, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled yesterday that all defendants with limited English proficiency have a right to an interpreter for criminal trials. Speaking about the case filed by the ACLU of Georgia and the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Azadeh Shahshahani, Director of the National Security/Immigrants’ Rights Project at the ACLU of Georgia said that the court ruling upheld a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution-

The court acknowledged that we don’t have two systems of justice in this country – one for English-speakers and another for everyone else. The constitutional guarantee of due process applies to everyone in this country, not just fluent English-speakers.

In keeping with the spirit of the Constitution practiced by the Georgia Supreme Court, let us hope that these same principles are upheld in all aspects of life, ensuring that everyone is treated equally with respect to dignity, justice, due process and fairness.

Photo courtesy of immigration.change.org

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

TV Political Ads: Ditching Democracy 30 Seconds at a Time

 

by Walter Brasch

 

        There's good news this week. There's only about two weeks before the midterm elections.

          Now for the bad news. There's still about two more weeks to be garroted by TV ads.

          Back-to-back-to-back, we are choking on lies, distortions, and half-truths. This year may go into history as having the most vicious attack ads since the "dark ages" shortly after the nation was founded. Biggest difference? More than two centuries later, most of the ads scream at you from television rather than partisan newspapers.

          Between $3.5 and $4.5 billion will be spent on campaign ads this season. That's one to two billion more than was spent during the midterm elections four years ago.

          One of the reasons for the increase in spending is that the conservative wing of the Republican party has launched an all-out assault to once again take over Congress. Another reason is that they got a supreme assist in January. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote along party lines, decided in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission [130 S.Ct. 876] that the First Amendment applies to corporations, which now would enjoy the same protections given to citizens and associations of citizens. The decision essentially obliterated the gains made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as the McCain–Feingold Act) and a Supreme Court decision (McConnell v. FEC; 540 U.S. 93) a year later that ruled most of the Act constitutional.

          In a strongly-worded dissent in the Citizens United case, Justice John Paul Stevens declared the Supreme Court's decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. . . . [It is] a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt." Justice Stevens further argued that, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." President Obama called the decision, "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

          Eight of the 10 groups that have bought the most TV advertising this election lean to the Republicans, according to an analysis of by the Wesleyan Media Project.

          And that brings us to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, second in spending only to the Republican Governors Association. The Chamber of Commerce, along with the National Rifle Association, was one of the most vigorous supporters of the Citizens United legal case to extend First Amendment protections to corporations. At one time, the Chamber was non-partisan. During the past decade, it has become an advocacy group for conservative candidates and ideology. For this election, it has promised to spend about $75 million in campaign ads. Because the Chamber, a non-profit agency, doesn't need to report its contribution and spending to the Federal Elections Commission, the nation is left wondering if it's true, as the President charges, that significant donations are from foreign companies and governments. Those contributions are illegal under U.S. law. The Chamber claims it does receive foreign money but doesn't use it for political advertising—but refuses to disclose specifics. Even if the Chamber doesn't use foreign money for political ads, the revenue it receives from foreign money frees up its budget to increase spending for a right-wing agenda. Four years ago, almost every organization disclosed where their funds came from. This year, according to FEC data, only about one-third of the organizations have done so.

          Republicans have put a "face" on their attack ads, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who appears in more anti-Democrat campaign ads than any Democrat running for office, is seen as everything evil. Perhaps it's because she is a powerful woman who represents San Francisco, a district that is racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse. Pelosi, and most Democrats in hotly contested races, are portrayed as Pelosi puppets who voted for the stimulus bill and health care reform, both seen erroneously by the ultra-conservative wing as socialist or Marxist programs. Most objective analysts say that the stimulus bill, even with its flaws, kept the nation out of sinking into a Depression, and that health reform, derisively known as Obamacare, has significantly improved the nation's health care while keeping costs down. However, President Obama doesn't appear in too many attack ads. For the Party on the White to emphasize the "evils" of President Obama could result in a backlash.

          In response, the Democrats have charged Republicans as being the "Party of NO," with no social conscience and no political agenda, a party that blocks any reform or progress solely for political reasons. What the Democrats didn't do is more important than what they did do. The Democrats have been unable to effectively use campaign advertising to portray the Republicans as the party in power when the nation entered into an unjustified $1 trillion war in Iraq, created the greatest deficit in American history, refused to stop Wall Street and bank greed, allowed the mortgage crisis to develop and undermine American security, brought about double-digit unemployment, and shoved the nation into one of its greatest recessions.

          But, here's another reality. TV ads, like newspaper editorials, seldom change anyone's preconceived opinions. Liberals continue to support liberals. Conservatives continue to support conservatives. The "independent" middle, sometimes known as a "soft vote" because both parties try to grab it, is largely a myth. The "soft middle" may not be influenced by any campaign ad—and they may not even vote.

 

          So, what is the purpose of TV ads and the significant increase in funding? Simply, it's to hold and reinforce the base. Conservatives have done much better to rally their base than have liberals this year. If the conservatives retake either or both houses of Congress, it will not be because the Obama administration failed. It will be because the conservatives spent significantly more on a full-range media campaign that included a dominant TV presence, rallied their base, controlled the news media, which controlled the agenda, and effectively blocked an ineffective Democratic response that failed to counter lies, distortions, and half-truths.

 

[Walter Brasch's latest book is Sex and the Single Beer Can, a witty and probing look at the media and American culture. It is available from Amazon.com and other stores.]

 

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads