“The More We See”: Trayvon Martin Or George Zimmerman, Who’s The Real Thug?
With George Zimmerman out on bail last week after his latest run-in with police, it seems an opportune time to discuss the second killing of Trayvon Martin.
The first, of course, has been discussed ad infinitum since Zimmerman shot the unarmed 17-year-old to death last year. But then Trayvon was killed again. The conservative noise machine engaged in a ritual execution of his character and worth, setting out with breathtaking indifference to facts and callous disregard for simple decency to murder the memory of a dead child.
Geraldo Rivera blamed him for his own death because he wore a hooded sweatshirt — in the rain, yet. Glenn Beck’s website suggested he might have been an arsonist, kidnapper or killer. Rush Limbaugh made jokes about “Trayvon Martin Luther King.”
Some conservative readers even chastised me for referring to him as a “child” or a “boy” though at 17, he was legally both. Makes him seem too sympathetic, they said. One man assured me, absent any evidence or, apparently, any need of it, that contrary to reports, Trayvon was not walking to where he was staying that day but was in fact “casing” the neighborhood.
One woman forwarded a chain email depicting a tough-looking, light-skinned African-American man with tattoos on his face. It was headlined: “The Real Trayvon Martin,” which it wasn’t. It was actually a then-32-year-old rapper who calls himself The Game. But the message was clear: Trayvon was a scary black man who deserved what he got.
I sent that woman an image of Trayvon from the Zimmerman trial. It shows him lying open-eyed and dead on the grass. “This is the real Trayvon,” I wrote.
It was a waste of time. “They’re both pictures of Trayvon,” she insisted. So deeply, bizarrely invested was she in the idea of Trayvon as thug that she could not distinguish between a fair-skinned man with tattoos, and a brown boy with no visible markings. Literally, they all look alike to her.
And once again, a conservative movement which argues with airy assurance that American racism died long ago, disproves its thesis with its actions.
Here, someone wants it pointed out that Trayvon Martin was not an angel. Well, he wasn’t. He took pictures flipping the bird. He used marijuana. He was suspended from school at the time of his shooting. Obviously, he needed guidance. The same is true of many boys. Indeed, it is rumored that there are even white children who use marijuana.
But here’s the thing: Why did some of us need Trayvon to be an angel in the first place? Why did they feel such a pressing urgency to magnify — and manufacture — his failings? Why was it so important to them to make him unworthy of sympathy?
It is a question that assumes new potency the more we see of George Zimmerman. On the day he shot Trayvon, this hero of the conservative noise machine, this righteous white Hispanic man who was, they say, just standing his ground, already had a record that included an accusation he attacked an undercover police officer. That same year — 2005 — a woman sought a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
In September, Zimmerman had a fresh run-in with police over a domestic violence accusation by his estranged wife. In this latest episode, a girlfriend said he pulled a gun on her. In court, she said that once, he even tried to choke her.
Granted, none of these charges has been adjudicated, but there is certainly a pattern here. It ought to give decent people pause and the conservative noise machine shame — assuming it is capable of that emotion. That pattern paints in neon the machine’s willful blindness, the reflexive alacrity with which it assigns the thug label to the black kid — and innocence to the white man.
Well, look again. George Zimmerman seems awfully darn thuggish to me.
By: Leonard Pitts, Jr., Featured Post, The National Memo, November 25, 2013
“The Grand Old Party In Reverse”: Christie, Cuccinelli And What The GOP Didn’t Learn In 2012
Elections, the saying goes, have consequences. Of course, some have more consequences than others. Consider the 2012 election – and then ponder this week’s gubernatorial races. You’d imagine that the big nationwide election would do more to jar the GOP than a couple of off-year gubernatorial races. But given the right’s nonreaction to 2012, reality-based Republicans must hope otherwise.
Think back a year. Given the results of the 2012 elections – Barack Obama won re-election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes; Senate Democrats gained seats, and House Democrats drew more votes (if not more seats) than House Republicans – you would not be faulted for thinking that the GOP was in for a course correction. And, for a brief while, it seemed likely. The Republican National Committee issued a postmortem with a slew of recommendations on how to turn the party around, with a focus on reaching out to female, minority and young voters. Washington pundits declared comprehensive immigration reform inevitable because Republicans had to do something to get on the right side of Hispanic voters. That was then. Now?
“At this point, we’ve gone backwards because of the government shutdown,” says Republican pollster Whit Ayres. “That doesn’t mean we can’t be resurrected in time to do very well in the 2014 elections given the gift of Obamacare. But it’s hard to look at the state of the party today versus Election Day in 2012 and think we’ve made much progress.”
What happened? The party leaders who wanted to adjust to the facts of reality were rolled by the alliance of the tea party and the right wing’s media-industrial complex, which is more interested in whipping up the base (and then fundraising off of it) than what movement conservatives like Erick Erickson derisively refer to as the “‘governing’ trap.” The Republican reboot was lost in a miasma of conservative windmill-tilting that culminated in the ill-conceived, predictably disastrous shutdown.
“They don’t care [about polls], but they need to care,” says Cook Political Report’s Jennifer Duffy. “When you need to pick up as many [Senate] seats as Republicans need right now, you can’t afford to have your brand hurt.” As former Rep. Tom Davis, a moderate Virginia Republican, said recently, “You’ve had the diagnosis, and now there’s the denial.”
When asked whether the GOP is better off a year later than immediately after getting trounced last November, one veteran Republican lobbyist offers that sometimes a party has to hit rock bottom. “At some point you have to cleanse your system,” the lobbyist says. “The question is how do you respond when you hit rock bottom?” The twin events of the dismal shutdown and this week’s contrasting gubernatorial elections give the GOP a fresh chance to hit the rock bottom reset button.
And there’s some hope that the 2013 elections will have the consequences that can finally penetrate the right’s bubble. Mitt Romney might have been challenging Obama in 2012, but he was also stalked by a phantasm of the right – a “true” conservative candidate that could set their hearts aflutter. The far right says “look, Romney wasn’t conservative enough … you need to shut the government down over Obamacare,” according to Davis. A true conservative, the theory goes, would have delivered the victory over Obama that the right wing fully expected right up until Fox News declared the president re-elected last year.
The 2013 elections, while more narrowly focused, present a starker contrast. You have conservative darling Ken Cuccinelli in the purple state of Virginia losing to Terry McAuliffe of all people; and you have New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the Republican who literally embraced Obama last October after Superstorm Sandy, winning by a landslide in a true-blue state. As pollster Ayres said when asked about this scenario last week: “It certainly presents a pair of compelling case studies whose message is obvious to all who are willing to see.”
So where to from here? Two things to keep an eye on: First is the budget battle rerun due in January – to what extent is the Ted Cruz-led conservative cabal able to drive the party into another vain, self-destructive shutdown? Early signs give reason for skepticism. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has ruled out another shutdown. “Ted Cruz went out and led a parade that he said would be a success … and then he walked down the alley like that character at the end of ‘Animal House,’ marched the whole band into the wall – and then he ran out and had a TV interview,” says conservative activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who adds that the next time Cruz has an idea, Republicans are either “going to throw something big at him” or otherwise politely dismiss him.
A second focus point will be the 2014 primaries. McConnell faces a serious challenge and a slew of other incumbents have primaries as well. “Rest well tonight, for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races,” former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook recently. “Let’s start with Kentucky – which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi – from sea to shining sea we will not give up.” The latter references were to GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander and Thad Cochrane – all incumbents facing challengers. It’s early to say whether any are credible, says Duffy, “but for a collection of safe incumbents, that’s a lot of primaries.” If the primaries produce few or any upsets, it could mean the tea party’s influence has receded.
“Republicans are only one election and one candidate away from resurrection in 2016,” says Ayres. Time will tell.
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, November 8, 2013
“Behold, The Obamacare Ombudsman Project”: Could Conservatives Help Obamacare Implementation Work?
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act, up to and including President Obama, have been at pains to point out to anyone who’d listen that as with any large and complex piece of legislation, implementation is going to be imperfect. There are going to be hiccups. Hurdles. Stumbles. Stops and starts, ups and downs, potholes and roadblocks and detours. They’ve been saying it because it’s true, because they want to prepare the media and the public, and because they know that conservatives will be squawking loudly every time it becomes apparent that some feature of the law needs to be adjusted, trying to convince everyone that even the most minor of difficulties is proof the law should never have been enacted in the first place.
But let me make a counter-intuitive suggestion: Perhaps all the inevitable overblown carping from the right will prove to be a good thing, making the law work better in the long run. Not because the conservatives’ motives aren’t bad (they are), and separate from the contemptible efforts to actively sabotage the law’s implementation. What I’m talking about is the effort by Republican members of Congress and conservative media figures to locate and publicize everything about Obamacare that isn’t going right. They could become a tireless team of Obamacare ombudsmen, forcing improvements to the law to happen faster than they otherwise would have by locating and publicizing what needs to be addressed. If there’s a pilot program that isn’t working out or a feature of the exchanges that isn’t operating properly, the likes of Darrell Issa and Sean Hannity are going to be on the case.
They could have a positive impact even on things they never notice. I’m sure the people who work in the Department of Health and Human Services, both career bureaucrats and political appointees alike, are keenly aware that their work on ACA implementation will be released into a charged political atmosphere, and if they screw up or do their jobs in a half-assed way, there’s a chance the whole world will find out about it. Nobody is going to want to have their department featured on Fox News, which could prove an incentive to work hard and make sure every T is crossed and I is dotted.
Okay, so the Conservative Obamacare Ombudsman Project does depend on them drawing attention to not just what’s most embarrassing or easily demagogued but the difficulties that are meaningful and can be fixed. And some fixes may require legislation, which would depend on some Republicans making the mental leap required to vote for a bill that would solve an actual problem, which is something many of them (in the House, anyway) have no experience with and might not be quite able to wrap their heads around. But stranger things have happened.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, September 17, 2013
“Delusional, Savvy Or Selfish?: The House GOP Is About To Crack Up
Lots of people think John Boehner has lost control of the House Republican caucus. Apparently John Boehner does, too.
On Wednesday, the speaker and his lieutenants had to stage yet another embarrassing retreat—this time, by postponing a vote on a “continuing resolution” that would fund government operations past September 30, when the current CR expires. Figuring out a way to pass such a bill has been one of Boehner’s biggest challenges for the last few weeks. And primarily that’s because the Republican Party’s right wing insists on linking a CR to Obamacare. Both in the House and in the Senate, Tea Party Republicans and their allies want the president’s health care law off the books or, at the very least, delayed and defunded. If they don’t get their way, they say, they won’t vote for any CR—even if that means the federal government shuts down.
Most members of the Republican establishment think this strategy is nuts. Senate Democrats would never agree to undermine Obamacare, they note. And even if a few Senate Democrats went along, enough to get such a measure through the chamber, President Obama would never sign such a bill. It’s his signature accomplishment and, for liberals, the biggest achievement since the Great Society. The shutdown that ensued would be bad for the country and, if the polls are right, most voters would blame the Republicans.
As of a few days ago, House leadership thought they’d come up with a solution: They’d pass a CR and include a provision to defund or delay Obamacare, but in a way that allowed the Senate to remove the Obamacare provision. The president would get a “clean” CR to sign, while congressional Republicans could tell their constituents and supporters they’d voted to get rid of Obamacare. Just to sweeten the deal, House leaders made sure the new CR would lock in lower levels of discretionary spending while bumping up defense spending—a position Obama and the Democrats oppose, but probably not enough to block such a proposal. House leaders also promised to stage a real, no-surrender fight on Obamacare later in October, when the federal government would need new authority to keep borrowing money.
Alas, the ploy failed—miserably. Michael Needham, chief executive officer of Heritage Action, called the leadership plan a “legislative gimmick” and warned, darkly, “it is our expectation that no conservative in Congress will try to deceive their constituents by going along with this cynical ploy.” Over in the Senate, Texas Republican and conservative agitator Ted Cruz was equally hostile to the idea: “If House Republicans go along with this strategy, they will be complicit in the disaster that is Obamacare.”
House Republican leadership didn’t appreciate the pressure, particularly from their Senate counterparts. And they didn’t hide their dismay to reporters. “They’re screwing us,” a House Republican aide told Burgess Everett of Politico. Another aide responded to an inquiry from Kate Nocera, of Buzzfeed, with a video of Will Ferrell talking about “crazy pills.” Yet another Republican staffer suggested to Roll Call‘s Matt Fuller that “Heritage Action and Club for Growth are slowly becoming irrelevant Neanderthals.”
Neanderthals? Yes. Irrelevant? Not really. By Wednesday morning, according to National Review‘s Jonathan Strong, Boehner and his colleagues had tallied just 200 “yes” votes in their internal counts. With House Democrats refusing to support a plan with such low spending levles, the leaders had no quick and easy way to get 217. And while aides assured reporters that the leadership just needed more time, an anecdote from Politico‘s Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan suggests Boehner was less confident:
A reporter asked [Boehner] whether he has a new idea to resolve the government funding fight. He laughed and said, “No.”
“Do you have an idea?” he asked the reporters. “They’ll just shoot it down anyway.”
He’s probably right. And it makes you wonder why the right wing is making Boehner’s life so difficult. Their explicit goal, getting rid of Obamacare, would seem to be out of reach. The political cost of pursuing that goal would seem to be high. Why keep at it?
Three theories come quickly to mind:
They are delusional. If you sincerely believe Obamacare will bankrupt the country, violate personal liberty, raise costs or ruin insurance for most Americans, and generally destroy American health care, then it’s easy to believe that it’s only a matter of time before the rest of the country demands repeal—forcing both Senate Democrats and the president to go along. It’s particularly easy to believe this if you live in the right-wing media bubble, where all of the reports about Obamacare focus on the law’s shortcomings and failures—insurance premiums going up, people losing coverage, part-time workers losing hours, and so on.
These stories offer a distorted picture of reality. While some are true, most are exaggerated and some are flat-out false. For the vast majority of people, Obamacare will change very little; and among those most directly affected, the presently uninsured and those who buy coverage on their own, there are going to be many more winners than losers. But you’d never know that if your primary sources of information are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
They are savvy. Maybe conservatives realize they can’t dislodge Obamacare and are simply hoping for leverage. At some point, Congress is going to pass a CR. And, at some point, Congress is going to raise the debt ceiling. Perhaps the Tea Party wing figures that, by holding out until the last possible minute, they increase the likelihood the final deal for each debate is more to their liking. Most likely, as Brian Beutler has explained at Salon, that would mean agreements that cut non-defense spending and increases defense spending more than Democrats would like.
Of course, the strategy could backfire. The more Boehner must rely on Democratic votes to pass a bill, the more concessions on spending he must make. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership have made that very clear. But if you’re a Tea Party Republican, maybe you take your chances, figuring that even less extreme members of your caucus won’t support bills that tilt too far toward the Democrats—and Boehner won’t pass a bill without at least some Republican support.
They are selfish. Fiscal extortion may be bad for the Republican brand and it is certainly bad for the country. But is it bad for the likes of Ted Cruz and Heritage Action? I’m not so sure.
Every time they force leadership to change plans, they appear more powerful. Every time they rant about Obamacare, their supporters get more excited. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle—and also, I imagine, a profitable one. If you have watched cable television news lately, you’ve undoubtedly seen some of the anti-Obamacare ads. They’re everywhere. These ads don’t simply spread conservative propaganda; they also gin up the base. It’s no coincidence that many of the advertisements—a majority of them, as best as I can tell—end not with a plea to call your congressman but with an appeal for donations.
If you’re one of the people producing these advertisements, it’s really a no-lose proposition. No matter what eventually happens with the budget and Obamacare, you get more visibility and more money. The rest of your party may come to hate you. (Note the recent anonymous quotes describing these groups as “Neanderthals.”) And if things get out of hand, the country could really suffer. But none of that diminishes your standing with the base. If anything, it will probably enhance it.
Which theory best explains the right’s behavior? Who knows. Probably all three have some truth. But the end result is the same. Conservatives seem determined to provoke a crisis, whether it’s over funding the government past September 30 or increasing the Treasury’s borrowing limit. If that happens, Boehner will face a choice. He can stand by while government services and the economy suffer—or, as Greg Sargent recently suggested, he can “cut the Tea Party loose, and suffer the consequences.” Yes, the consequences might include Boehner losing his job as speaker. Those are the kinds of risks real leaders take, in order to serve the public.
By: Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor, The New Republic, September 12, 2013
“The Copy And Paste Media”: How Assad Wooed The American Right, And Won The Syria Propaganda War
Even before President Barack Obama put his plans to strike the Syrian regime on hold, he was losing the battle of public opinion about military intervention. Part of the credit, no doubt, goes to a successful media blitz by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its supporters. In an interview aired on Monday night, Assad himself advanced his government’s case to Charlie Rose, saying that the United States had not presented “a single shred of evidence” proving the Syrian military had used chemical weapons.
Assad has always been able to skillfully parry Western journalists’ criticisms of his regime — and, at times, it has won him positive international coverage. Before the uprising, the U.S. media often described the Assad family as Westernized leaders who were trying to bring their country into the 21st century. The most infamous example was Vogue’s profile of Asma al-Assad, which described Syria’s first lady as “a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind … [with] a killer IQ.” But even experts in the field went along: Middle East historian David Lesch wrote a biography of Bashar describing the president as a modernizer, before changing his mind during the uprising.
The carnage over the past two and a half years put an end to much of this praise — but now pro-Assad media outlets have found a new way to influence the American debate. Assad supporters’ claims have repeatedly been republished unquestioningly by right-wing commentators in the United States, who share their hostility toward both Sunni Islamists and the Obama administration. It’s a strange alliance between American conservatives and a regime that was one of America’s first designated state sponsors of terror, and continues to work closely with Iran and Hezbollah.
“There is evidence — mounting evidence — that the rebels in Syria did indeed frame Assad for the chemical attack,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told his audience on Sept. 3. “But not only that, but Obama, the regime, may have been complicit in it. Mounting evidence that the White House knew and possibly helped plan the Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition!”
Limbaugh’s cited an article by Yossef Bodansky on Global Research, a conspiracy website that has advanced a pro-Assad message during the current crisis. “How can the Obama administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians?” Bodansky asked.
Bodansky is an ally of Bashar’s uncle, Rifaat al-Assad — he pushed him as a potential leader of Syria in 2005. Rifaat is the black sheep of the Assad family: He spearheaded the Syrian regime’s brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but then was forced into exile after he tried to seize power from his brother, President Hafez al-Assad, in 1983. Despite his ouster, however, Rifaat is just as hostile to a Sunni Islamist takeover as other members of the Assad family — a position Bodansky appears to share. Ending Alawite rule in Syria, Bodansky wrote on another pro-Assad website, “will cause cataclysmic upheaval throughout the greater Middle East.”
Pro-Assad voices have also helped shape the debate in Europe. The British organization Stop the War, which was instrumental in convincing Parliament to reject a strike on Syria, is not just made up of opponents of intervention — it includes staunch supporters of the Syrian regime. The organization’s vice president is a Stalinist who praised Assad for “a long history of resisting imperialism,” and warned that his defeat “will pave the way for a pro-Western and pro-U.S. regime.” Other top officials in the organization have also spoken publicly about the benefits of keeping Assad in power.
One of the most common ways for pro-Assad propaganda to find its way into reputable newspapers is through Christian news outlets. Arab Christians have many legitimate fears of how Islamist takeovers in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East could affect them — but nonetheless, some of the outlets that cover their plight regularly trade fact for fiction.
The official Vatican news agency, Agenzia Fides, for example, was caught reproducing word-for-word a report on the alleged mass killing of Christians in the city of Homs from Syria Truth, a virulently pro-Assad website. The Agenzia Fides report was eventually picked up by the Los Angeles Times — with no mention, of course, of the original source.
It’s not only the LA Times that has been duped in this way. USA Today ran an article earlier this year saying Saudi Arabia had sent 1,200 inmates on death row to fight in Syria, sourcing the claim to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA). The document, however, appears to be a hoax, and had been passed around frequently by pro-Hezbollah websites prior to appearing on AINA. In addition to relying on pro-Assad sources, AINA also looks to U.S. conservatives for inspiration — it republished an article titled “The Myth of the Moderate Syrian Rebels” that first appeared in the far-right FrontPage Magazine.
One of the most prolific defenders of the Assad regime is Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix, who says she is a Carmelite nun born in Lebanon who converted to Christianity when she was 19. The National Review uncritically cited her claim last year that Syrian rebels had gathered Christian and Alawite hostages together in a building in the city of Homs, and proceeded to destroy the building with dynamite, killing them all. More recently, she has argued that the video evidence of the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack were fabricated, writing that it was “staged and prepared in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.”
But right-wing Americans partisans have not been shy about simply copy-and-pasting claims made in pro-Assad media outlets when it suits their interests, no matter the source. For example, the website Jihad Watch, which is run by leading Islamophobe Robert Spencer, repeated a claim by the Arabic-language al-Hadath that Syrian rebels attacking the Syrian town of Maaloula “terrorized the Christians, threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution.”
It doesn’t take much time reading al-Hadath to realize that this is a site staunchly loyal to the Syrian regime and its allies — and therefore inclined to dramatize stories of rebel crimes. The website contains an editorial by the editor-in-chief lauding Hezbollah, and another article reports that a kidnapped European writer said that the rebels launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack (the writer has denied making such claims).
Other stories in such publications, of course, would never see the light of day in the U.S. media. Al-Hadath, for example, features a section dedicated to news about Israel titled “Know Your Enemy” — a strange match for the American right-wing, to say the least.
By: David Kenner, Foreign Policy, September 10, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 