Frank Luntz gets called out for his phony Obama-bashing ‘focus group’ after the SOTU
January 30, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media It really isn’t any news to our readers that Frank Luntz is one of the most ethics-challenged “pollsters” out there, particularly since he really has had so much influence on our national discourse by his significant role in shaping right-wing talking points. But as Ellen at NewsHounds observed the other day , he really reached new depths with his dog-and-pony “focus group” on Fox News with Sean Hannity that followed President Obama’s State of the Union address — because it was so obviously larded up with Obama-haters: Given that 53% of the country voted for Barack Obama, 15 or 16 people should have been Obama voters to make it a representative sample of Americans. Furthermore, given their level of hostility to Obama, especially when he is enjoying a resurgence in the polls, you have to wonder how many of those 13 were Obama-voting Republicans or Tea Partiers. Luntz also repeatedly asked his group questions designed to elicit negative comments about Obama. Today, the L.A. Times’ James Rainey lowered the boom with a devastating critique: The kangaroo court convened with Chief Justice Hannity declaring Obama “flat,” redundant and out of touch. Luntz didn’t even bother to stifle a smile when he told the 29 members of the focus group, “I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said.” Luntz asked those seated in the front row to give a word or two to assess Obama’s performance. Seven of 10 let him have it. “Platitudes,” said one, followed by “empty, redundant, political, not connected with America, hyperbole and Obama conflicting….” Never mind trying to find neutral language — the goal of any truly nonpartisan pollster — so as not to taint the subjects. In one question, Luntz allowed the panel to say only that the speech had exceeded or fell short of expectations. No chance for the panelists to stake out the likely middle ground. Lo and behold! Most of them said the speech fell short. Perhaps the slipperiest of Luntz’s tricks played on the most important question of all: how Obama has handled the economy. First noting that the president called the “worst” of the recession over, Luntz later said: “How many of you believe the recession is over, raise your hands?” He then relayed the result: “Three of you. So obviously that must have undercut credibility when he said it?” Of course, when you misstate what a politician says — in this case taking out the all-important qualifier that Obama referred to the worst of the recession ending — it’s not hard to make that politician look woefully out of touch. In an exchange of e-mails the next day, Luntz defended his claim. He said his panel had “dialed downward” (with hand-held devices for keeping running tabs on the speech) at the moment Obama spoke about the recession. “It’s what they heard,” Luntz said. “I realize Obama said the worst of the recession is over, but they heard the recession is over.” The day after our little e-mail chat, Luntz clearly intended to keep mangling Obama’s message. “The president said the recession is over,” he said on the Fox Business Network’s “Imus in the Morning.” Naturally, people are too “angry” and “agitated” to hear that kind of talk, he said. Indeed. As you can see from the video above, Hannity sets the tone from the outset, clearly advising the “focus group” on what the tenor of their remarks should be — though Luntz lamely tries to tell them not to pay Hannity any mind: HANNITY: First of all, I thought a lot of this was flat, surprisingly so, inasmuch as we’ve heard a lot of this before — earmark reform, transparency, for example. It almost seemed like the “Yes, we can” magic disappeared a little, maybe because we’ve heard it before. But the thing that struck me Frank, and I’m dying to find out what your group says, is the disconnect. I did not feel the president had the sense of urgency, how bad unemployment, the debt, the deficit is, when he called for $400 billion in savings, when he accumulated $3.4 trillion in new debt since he’s been president. It seems like he’s trying to sell the same policies. FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Let’s fan out what our 29 people in Atlanta had to say. And I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said. I want a word or phrase to describe what you thought of the speech. And it just goes quickly downhill from there. Nice schtick you’ve got there, Frank. It’s obvious you’re addressing those concerns about not getting as much airtime on Fox as you used to, as Rainey notes: He has suggested that his airtime has previously been cut on Fox because his findings didn’t comport with the outlet’s orthodoxy. All “fixed” now, eh? Full transcript below : SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening welcome to the special edition of Hannity. President Obama addressed the nation tonight in his annual State of the Union address. Unlike his previous addresses this came before a divided Congress with Republicans now in control of the House. The speech ran 62 minutes during which the president vowed to keep America competitive, called for a five year domestic spending freeze, and pushed for bipartisanship. But did the speech resonate with Americans? We turn now to Frank Luntz. He’s standing by with a live focus group in Atlanta tonight. Frank, I don’t know what your focus group has to say. I’m going to give you a few of my thoughts. First of all, I thought a lot of this was flat, surprisingly so, inasmuch as we’ve heard a lot of this before — earmark reform, transparency, for example. It almost seemed like the “Yes, we can” magic disappeared a little, maybe because we’ve heard it before. But the thing that struck me Frank, and I’m dying to find out what your group says, is the disconnect. I did not feel the president had the sense of urgency, how bad unemployment, the debt, the deficit is, when he called for $400 billion in savings, when he accumulated $3.4 trillion in new debt since he’s been president. It seems like he’s trying to sell the same policies. FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Let’s fan out what our 29 people in Atlanta had to say. And I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said. I want a word or phrase to describe what you thought of the speech. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Optimism, platitudes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Empty. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Redundant. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Political. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not connected with America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hyperbole. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Obama conflicting and Ryan was speaking just like every American I meet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hopeful on Obama, but not compelling. LUNTZ: I want to see a quick show of hands of everyone in this room, did he exceed or fall short of your expectations? Who would say he exceeded, raise your hands? Two people. Who would say he fell short? A lot of you. Sean, I want to go to one clip we did, because Obama talked a lot about bipartisanship, and yet the Republicans didn’t respond too favorably to that. The red line is Republicans, green line is Democrats. Watch how high the green declines and red falls when Barack Obama appeals directly to partisanship. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together or not at all, for the challenges we face are bigger than party, bigger than politics. (END VIDEO CLIP) LUNTZ: So the question is, what is it about this appeal to bipartisanship that those of you on the Republican side don’t like? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t believe it. LUNTZ: Explain it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said that before. When he first got into office he was going to be the president to change everything, come across the aisle. It never happened. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is phony. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is bipartisan? Is it if you agree with me? I mean, we’ve got two sides here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t want to use one of those curse words we can’t use. The Republicans didn’t. The first thing he said was I’m not going to work with him. I’m not going to work with you. That’s like throwing down the gauntlet. LUNTZ: Hold on one second. Sean, you’ve got a question? HANNITY: Yes, I do. Somebody said it. He said all of these things before. He said it last year, during the campaign. And this whole campaign it was only a couple months ago when he was calling Republicans enemies. They can sit in the back. For two years Republicans weren’t invited to the table. So in that sense are we just reading words from a teleprompter or has he lost the ability because he has two years experience for people to belief him? LUNTZ: So here’s the question, is it politics or principle that you heard tonight? Who would say politics, raise your hand. Who would say principle? You said principle, tell me why? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This president is doing the best he can at this point. He’s trying to be in the center. He’s not being — it is not that he’s trying to cause problems with the economy. He’s doing the best job he can do. I think he’s doing a great job. He’s brought unemployment down. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Experience, experience, and we are not making any progress whatsoever. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In 2000 he said Bush is not the real president. And then they are yelling at him for the same thing. Everyone is saying the same things again, it’s 10 years later, the same thing, but we are worse off. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two years of railroading legislation in Washington, rolling over Republicans, accusing them of being cynical. Now saying let’s come to the table, have a drink and work together. It’s nonsense. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like getting romantic talk from Tiger Woods. Are you going to put your trust in him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They got a lot done this lame duck session. When they did come together and pass bipartisan support, things got an accomplished. You have people probably to the far right who don’t want to see any time of compromise. When you have compromise, things get done, you get bills passed. LUNTZ: Again, what is wrong with compromise? I want to understand. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to have some compromise. Give a little on both sides. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There’s nothing wrong with compromise. People have to talk about what is good for each side and take the good together. Not everybody is going to be happy. LUNTZ: Is Barack Obama sincere about bipartisanship? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don’t know. (CROSSTALK) LUNTZ: One at a time. Is Barack Obama sincere? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he is. And I think it should be the American people what they want. We are all-American, not Democrat, not Republican. LUNTZ: I get it. Sean, the State of the Union is supposed to bring people together. It is supposed to appeal to all Americans, not just the Americans from your political party. I don’t think that has happened tonight. They are just as divided now as they were an hour and a half ago. Back to you. HANNITY: Well, Frank, you can’t forget the two years. It’s a big difference. All right, we have a lot more with Frank Luntz coming up in just a minute and his focus group. Tomorrow night, by the way, we’ll have Mitt Romney, his reaction. Also Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove. There’s plenty more with Frank coming up right after this break. HANNITY: Welcome back to this special edition of “Hannity.” And we check in once again with Frank Luntz standing by in my old hometown in Atlanta with a focus group of voters. Frank, you have another dial I believe you are going to run? LUNTZ: Yes. Once again, watch the lined as the Republicans, green Democrats the higher the more favorable reaction. Barack Obama said the worst of the recession is over. Let’s see if your people agreed with him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Now the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) LUNTZ: So I got two questions now for you all. How many of you believe the recession is over, raise your hands? Three of you. So obviously that must have undercut credibility when he said it? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think with inflation at risk still and unemployment the highest it has been it is worse for us still. With the debt, it is kind of everyone is still worried. There’s too much uncertain ground. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. He’s talking about cutting spending, are you kidding me? All this guy does is spend. He said we need to live within our means. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re a small business owner. Do you feel the economy is starting to turn around for people like you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I’m afraid of the economy for people like me. I don’t feel like that at all. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s talking cutting spending, but he wants to freeze spending for five years and that’s two different things. LUNTZ: And then one other question for you all. He does say that he wants to cut spending. How many of you by a show of hands believe him? Now, 13 of you voted for him. Sean, all the questions I’m asking, only three, four, five of them feel comfortable with the things that he said or how he said them. HANNITY: One thing, it is very interesting. I paid close attention to what the president was saying. And I find the word “investment” to be code for an increase in government spending. He gave two very specific examples about the one company and another example. And he’s talking about investment in education, investment in green jobs. It all means more spending from my point of view. As one of your guests pointed out, he’s had two years, $3.4 trillion he accumulated in new debt. He wants to freeze spending but freeze at the inflated levels that he began. So it doesn’t seem like any significant cut, in my point of view. Do they think so? LUNTZ: OK, do you think Barack Obama is serious? Do you think the cuts he’s talking about are significant? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No! Let’s look at the facts. LUNTZ: One at a time. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were not told the truth from the time he game president. Why should we believe him now? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s disguising what he spent using words like investment as opposed to saying he’s spending. He’s not reducing anything. He’s just transferring how it is spent. LUNTZ: Did you support him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I did. LUNTZ: And yet you have problems with what he said about cutting spending? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because everything he has said thus far hasn’t been true. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If both sighs come together — he was talking about both sighs coming together — and then determine what they can cut. It both sides come together then it will be true. It can happen if both sighs work together like they did in the lame duck session. LUNTZ: Sean, last question? HANNITY: Frank, of the 13 you say in the room that voted for Barack Obama, would — are they leaning towards reelecting him? LUNTZ: How many of you are definitely or probably voting for Barack Obama in 2012? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without knowing the alternatives? LUNTZ: Without knowing the alternatives, who is pretty well behind him? Seven of you. Why are only seven of you who voted for him still most likely to be voting for him now? What did he do that was wrong? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is the other candidate, is it you Mr. Luntz? LUNTZ: You might not vote for Obama? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you run I’ll vote for you. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How can you ask a question like that. Is the gun green or blue when it goes off? LUNTZ: Because what that teaches me is even in his base, there are people such as Lawrence who may not vote for him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, because the things that he had to do, he had an opportunity. He didn’t do it right. So now he has — someone else has to come in and clean it up. LUNTZ: Sean, great group. If I were Barack Obama watching this tonight, I would be a little bit nervous. And if I were Paul Ryan, I would be pretty excited. HANNITY: Great focus group. Thanks to everybody, and that’s all the time with have left. We have Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Karl Rove tomorrow.
Continue reading …
President appoints intelligence chief to vice-president post as streets ring out to cry of ‘Mubarak, your plane is ready’ Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak was desperately trying to cling to power last night as troops opened fire in an attempt to keep tens of thousands of protesters from storming the interior ministry and state-run television and radio stations. The president’s attempt to mollify the demonstrators by sacking his government 24 hours earlier had failed and the leader of the largest Arab nation was facing an ignoble and violent end to his 30 years in power. The streets rang out with anti-government slogans and the cry “Mubarak, your plane is ready”. The president, 82, who has not picked a vice-president since he took office in 1981, appointed his intelligence chief and confidant, Omar Suleiman, to the post. The step indicates for the first time a possible succession plan and also suggests that Mubarak’s son, Gamal, long seen as the leader-in-waiting, has been pushed out of the picture. Suleiman, 74, has taken a close role in key policy areas, including the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, an issue seen as vital to Egypt’s relationship with the US, its key ally and aid donor. Last night, even as the death toll from confrontations between the security forces and the protesters reached 100 and hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties, there were even more people on the streets of the country’s major cities after dark, defying an army-backed curfew. Small-arms fire was heard throughout the night. The chief of staff of Egypt’s armed forces, Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Enan, cut short a visit to meet the American joint chiefs of staffs as news spread that some troops were refusing to open fire on unarmed protesters. “There’s a lot of uncertainty about where the army stands right now,” said Karim Ennarah, who was taking part in protests in Cairo. “They are telling people that the tanks have moved in to protect them, and people are showing great warmth in return, dancing on tanks and hugging and kissing soldiers. It looks as if the soldiers are unwilling to launch attacks on the crowds, although senior officers are pleading with protesters to respect the curfew and go home.” There was speculation that the generals would persuade Mubarak to step down to avoid a total breakdown. Looters have broken into the Egyptian Museum, which hold the treasures of Tutankhamun, destroying a number of mummies. Attempts were also made to break into the national bank. Reports emerged of gunfire in the affluent Cairo neighbourhood of Mahdi. Local men were in the street with clubs and chains to prevent any looting. Mubarak was rocked by the resignation of a senior member of his ruling party, Ahmed Ezz, a close friend of his son. Further pressure was heaped on him by the Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Mubarak should step down and set a framework for transition of power as the only way to end unrest. The former head of the UN nuclear watchdog told al-Jazeera that Mubarak’s speech, in which he said he would form a new government, was “disappointing” for Egyptians. David Cameron spoke to Mubarak last night to express his “grave concern” about violence against anti-government protesters in Egypt. The prime minister urged the embattled leader to “take bold steps to accelerate political reform and build democratic legitimacy” rather than attempt to repress dissent, according to Downing Street. In a joint statement with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Cameron added: “The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances and a longing for a just and better future. We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections.” ElBaradei, a possible candidate in Egypt’s presidential election this year, flew back to Cairo from Vienna on Thursday. He said: “The system of Hosni Mubarak has failed to achieve the political, economic and social demands of the Egyptian people and we want to build a new Egypt founded on freedom, democracy and social justice. The main demand is that President Mubarak announces clearly that he will resign, or that he will not run again.” Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Egypt, said of the demonstrations: “I’m struck by the variety of age, of class, of gender. It’s across the board, you can see it – you can see the variety of people there. It’s not, from my perception, religiously driven. This is not the Muslim Brotherhood. The important thing that we have to focus on is to try to maintain a state of order where what President Mubarak talks of, a national dialogue, can take place.” King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said: “The kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and government declares it stands with all its resources with the government of Egypt and its people.” The Saudi stock market, the Arab world’s largest, dropped 6.43% amid the rising tensions. Traders fear that other Gulf markets could experience similar falls. President Obama spoke to Mubarak on the phone, issuing a stern warning that promises of reform had to be followed by meaningful action. It was still a far way from abandoning a man who has been a trusted and loyal ally of successive US administrations. But it was a rapid shift of gears from just 24 hours previously and it was essentially driven entirely by the protesters on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. The situation is even more complex for Washington’s other allies in the region, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In all those countries ordinary people have watched agog at the protests and then taken to the streets in varying degrees to try to kickstart their own protests. Leaders may have to walk the same tightrope Mubarak is trying to walk: balancing promises of reform with keeping control. Egypt Middle East Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Sen. Bernie Sanders talked to Ed Schultz about John Boehner and the Republicans wanting to destroy the social safety nets in America and their goal of privatizing Social Security and putting it in the hands of Wall Street and raising the retirement age. Sen. Sanders pointed out that there’s a very simple way to make sure Social Security remains solvent. Raise the income cap on the tax so it’s less regressive. SANDERS: Massive amounts of misinformation and disinformation. The truth of the matter is, Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years, at which point it could pay out about 80 percent of all benefits. What does that mean? It means that within 27 years, we have to figure out how we deal with that gap. In my view, what you do is you lift the income cap so that people making more than $250,000 contribute more into the system. SCHULTZ: Yes. SANDERS: Right now, you‘re making $1 million—you‘re putting the same into the system as somebody making $106,000. Do it, problem solved, end of discussion. SCHULTZ: OK. So, their method is misinformation. Their goal is to do what, line the pockets of the big boys on Wall Street? SANDERS: Absolutely. Look, what the debate is about, Ed, is not really about the finances of Social Security. It‘s an ideological debate. You know as well as I do, these guys don‘t like government. They love Wall Street. If you destroy Social Security and people want to have a retirement account, you invest in Wall Street. Wall Street makes over a period of time tens and tens of billions of dollars. That, in fact, is the long-term goal. Second of all, if you have a Social Security system, as we have right now, which for 75 years, Ed—and people should appreciate that—has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American in a very cost-effective way. You know what? People might actually have some faith in government. You can read the rest of the transcript for this segment here . Bernie made a lot of other great points as well on raising the retirement age and how these people out there protesting at these tea party rallies are being duped.
Continue reading …Palin and Bachmann Nitpicker Chris Matthews Says Panama Canal Is In Egypt
January 29, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters has been reporting almost ad nauseam, Chris Matthews spent much of last week mercilessly lambasting Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann with cherry-picked and distorted quotes far afield of their intended meaning. On Friday, the “Hardball” host got a touch of instant karma when he said the Panama Canal is in Egypt (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, the great thing about Egypt is it’s its own country. It was always there before there was an America or Britain or anything, there has been an Egypt. It’s like China. It’s a real country. It wasn’t just carved off the map or out of the map by the Europeans, like so many African and third world countries have. It’s got a real rooted history. It’s not just an Arab country. It was a country long before it was an Arab country — long before Islam, there was an Egypt. Will it see itself in this moment of chaos as joining a greater Islamic world or is holding to its national identity? AMB. MARC GINSBERG, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO (via telephone)GINSBERG: There’s no doubt that the Egyptians view themselves as the center of culture in the Arab and the Muslim world and the center of Islamic learning. I studied there. I used to take classes at the al-Azhar University, which is considered to be the pre-eminent Islamic institution in the Muslim world, Chris. MATTHEWS: Right. GINSBERG: And the fact is that there’s enormous pride going back to the history of the pharaohs. The Egyptians embrace their ancient culture. But they’re very dissatisfied with their current regime. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the prospects we’re looking at as an American. We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal. Someone must have spoken in Matthews’ earplug, for he corrected himself moments later: MATTHEWS: It is the largest and only true partner even if it’s a cold peace with Israel. It is, in fact, the key to whatever Middle East peace we’re able to arrange in our lifetime. It always tends to support the moderate forces in – the Suez Canal. It has always supported the moderate forces in that region. In fairness, I know full well that Matthews is aware of what countries these respective canals reside in. This was a mistake. People make them. The problem is that folks like Matthews, who so desperately hate Palin and Bachmann, are hanging on their every utterance looking to pounce on anything that can be twisted and misconstrued to embarrass and defame these conservative women. As we demonstrated last week, this is even when the comments aren’t nearly as out of line as people like Matthews claim. Contrary to the prevailing liberal meme, Bachmann did not state last Saturday that the Founding Fathers ended slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War. Unlike what Matthews reported Thursday, Palin did not say the Russians beat us in the Space Race. Even the perilously liberal Tommy Christopher admitted as much Saturday. Compounding matters further is folks like Matthews give Democrats a pass when they commit faux pas. Consider all the gaffes and blunders made by candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden that went completely uncovered during the 2008 campaign. What Americans have painfully learned in recent years is that when people on the Left err, so-called journalists consider them only human. But when conservatives are caught even coming close to making a slip of the tongue, they’re unfit for office. With this in mind, Matthews better be darned careful, for if he’s going to demand perfection from conservatives, we’re going to demand it of him. What's good for conservative geese should be good for liberal gander. (H/T NB reader Miles Taylor)
Continue reading …
enlarge Hosni Mubarak (left) with Anwar Sadat (right). Plucked from obscurity and never looked back. Click here to view this media With the fast-breaking news this week of continued and intensified demonstrations against the regime of President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo and throughout Egypt, I’m reminded of how Mubarak rose to power — as the result of Sadat’s assassination on October 7, 1981. Virtually unknown, even in Egypt at the time, Hosni Mubarak was a General in the Egyptian Air Force when he was chosen by then-President Anwar Sadat to become vice-President . With Sadat’s assassination by a group of military conspirators, Mubarak quickly assumed the role of President — one which he’s maintained the past 31 years, establishing a virtual monarchy in the process. So as a refresher of where these dynasties get started and how, here is a Special Edition of All Things Considered, which aired on the evening of October 7,1981, a few hours after the assassination and the official announcement of Sadat’s death. In the broadcast are several news reports, reactions and speculations on what the future had in store for Egypt. Whether or not it offers any insights as to goings on in the streets of Cairo today isn’t quite clear. Although, a recent item citing support of the Mubarak regime by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce might produce a clue, at least in some circles and the recent release of Wikileaks cables on Egypt in recent years might be another. Still, a story quickly unfolding. And like all stories, it has a history to go along with it.
Continue reading …Tucson shooting victim explains his threatening outburst: ‘I really meant him no harm’
January 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media You may remember Eric Fuller — the survivor of the Tucson massacre who fingered right-wing rhetoric for fueling the tragedy, and then a few days later was arrested for making a threatening remark at a Town Hall gathering directed at a local Tea Party leader. This, of course, made him a major target of right-wing talkers like Bill O’Reilly, who proceeded to demonize the man as a prime example of left-wing hate . Fuller has now given a thoughtful interview to the local station in Tucson, KGUN, in which he tries to explain why he said what he did: “Where Gabrielle Giffords was standing, when I began hearing the gunfire, I turned and looked and there was Jared [Loughner], athletically pumping out the rounds, taking aim and firing,” Fuller recalled. For him, the memory of the shooting is fresh and sharp. So sharp, it got him into trouble. He already believed guns are too easy to obtain when he became one of the shooting victims January 8th. A week later he was part of a town hall meeting sponsored by ABC News. When Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries suggested it was too soon to talk about tighter gun control, Fuller did something that got him arrested. He pointed a camera at Humphries and said, “You’re dead.” Now, Fuller has apologized for the perceived threat that landed him in hot water with the authorities. “I’d like to reiterate my apology to Mr. Humphries. I really meant him no harm. However, what I was trying to do is demonstrate how very quickly within the same space of time as the click of a shutter on a camera that another person can pull a trigger and your life is over, it’s done,” Fuller said. Back when this happened, Nicole suggested this might be what Fuller intended. And as she observed at the time, that’s really no excuse: Even if Fuller intended no threat in his remark, two things remain obvious: A) it would be reasonable for anyone hearing that remark, especially the recipient, to interpret it as a threat; and B) it is nonetheless violent rhetoric in any event. For people who are confronting the real-world ramifications of violent rhetoric, this sort of reaction (especially on an emotional level) is perfectly understandable — but it is also perfectly destructive. Violent rhetoric cannot be beaten by more violent rhetoric. It can only be defused by breaking the cycle of violence, choosing words that advance the debate, as President Obama put it , “in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” Still, given that the man was still recovering from his wounds, as Karoli pointed out, and was placed in an excruciatingly difficult situation to begin, I’d like to think most reasonable people would cut him some slack and accept his clear apologies. This, of course, necessarily excludes all the hosts, anchors and reporters at Fox News.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Democracy Now’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Amy Goodman talked to professor Juan Cole about the protests in Egypt and the position the US government now finds itself in with having to choose between human rights and a government that they’ve thrown their hat in with that supports Israel. Juan Cole: “Egypt is a Praetorian Regime” : SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: We’re talking today about Egypt, the unprecedented protests in the streets right now. We just got a report from Egypt from Ahmad Shokr in Cairo. We’re going to turn right now to Juan Cole, to Ann Arbor, Michigan. He’s a professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He blogs at the very popular blog “Informed Comment.” It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World. Thank you very much for joining us, Juan Cole. We just had this breaking news from the Al Jazeera reporter on Twitter. He’s saying that the prominent Egyptian opposition politician Ayman Nour was struck in the head by a rock. He’s been hospitalized, and he’s semi-conscious. And also, the son of Ayman Nour was struck in the back of the head by a rock and is also now in the hospital. Can you talk about what is happening right now in Egypt? And put it in context of the greater Arab world, of what’s happening in Tunisia. JUAN COLE: The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic. These were postcolonial societies, societies that had been under Western dominance often, which—and that dominance was opposed by nationalist movements, led by legends like Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia or Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. And they were wildly popular in their day, because they were throwing off the West. But as time went on, the regimes that were set up became dominated by a kind of state elite, a relatively small group of people that benefited from state power, from the large public sector, from the throwing of contracts to particular individuals in the private sector. And they proved themselves unable to adapt over time to a globalizing world. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: One correction, it’s just Ayman Nour who was struck in the back of the head. His son reported to Al Jazeera what happened. His son has not been injured. But, Juan Cole, can you talk about the Mubarak regime, who is Hosni Mubarak, how did he come to power, and his reign for—well, this year marks the 30th anniversary of his coming to power? JUAN COLE: Hosni Mubarak is a former air force chief of staff and general. He was trained in Moscow. He speaks good Russian. And he is the third in the series of military leaders of Egypt since 1952, or you could say the fourth, in some ways. In any case, they’ve all been military men. They’ve all come out of the military. They’re backed by the existing military. And that’s—so Egypt is a Praetorian regime, and this is sometimes forgotten now because Mubarak wears business suits and there’s an elected parliament, although the elections are widely believed not to be on the up and up. AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, I wanted to ask you about the U.S. role in the shoring up of Mubarak over these 30 years, the same question that I put to Ahmad Shokr, the more than $2 billion, second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid next to Israel, and what that means—President Obama’s speech there, what the U.S. relationship is, and if the U.S. said to Mubarak that they would withdraw aid, what you think he would do. JUAN COLE: Well, I think the U.S. aid is nice for the Egyptian elite to have. I don’t think it’s essential to them. It should be remembered that the U.S. aid is a little bit of a shell game, because Congress typically directs that all of the matériel come from the United States. So it’s actually aid to U.S. corporations, and then the Egyptians get some of it in the form of goods and so forth, military weaponry, which they mostly don’t need. I think the U.S. aid was initiated because Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel. It’s Congress’s way of more or less bribing Egypt to remain on good terms with Israel. A lot of it is military aid, so that the Egyptian military remains relatively strong. But that military has taken itself out of the game of Middle East politics. In some ways, it’s been absent from the great struggles—the Gaza war, the Lebanon war. Egypt kind of stands off and says, “Well, that’s really too bad. They shouldn’t be fighting like that.” So, in contrast to the kind of muscular nationalism of the 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser made Egypt the center of the Arab world and in some ways also of Africa, now Egypt is—you know, its regime really has been taking a quiet bribe to turn inward, to concentrate on building up its tourist industry. And it has had some success in fostering economic growth in the past 10 years, although it’s the kind of growth such that a lot of the increased revenue is going to the elites, in any case. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Juan Cole, I want to play what President Obama had to say yesterday about the situation in Egypt. He made his first comments in response to a question about Egypt during a live YouTube interview. Take a listen. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It’s my main hope right now is, is that violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt. So the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence, and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. And I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that, I think, is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was President Obama speaking yesterday. Vice President Joe Biden also yesterday said that President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, since 1981, was not a dictator. He made the comment in an interview on the PBS NewsHour. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Vice President Joe Biden. Juan Cole, your response? JUAN COLE: Well, Vice President Biden seems to be wanting to define a dictator not with regard to domestic policy, but with regard to the responsible role the regime plays in the international world system, you know, from Washington’s point of view. But certainly, from the point of view of human rights activists in Egypt, there are strong dictatorial tendencies in the Egyptian government. It’s seen a lot of phony elections. It’s used repressive techniques. In some instances, those repressive techniques have been directed against radical movements. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al-Zawahiri was active in Egypt in the 1980s and ’90s, blowing up things, shooting down tourists and others. And these same secret police were deployed at that time to track them down, arrest them, and really to eradicate them from the scene in Egypt. And this is one of the things that drives this regime’s repressiveness, is that it is afraid of Muslim fundamentalist movements. Whether they are radical—and there have been a number of important radical movements in Egypt that have resorted to violence—or whether they are social and political, as with the large and important Muslim Brotherhood movement, the regime is very afraid—and this comes out from U.S. cables that have been released by WikiLeaks—that the Muslim Brotherhood will find a way to take over. And, you know, when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1979, the first thing they did was execute a lot of the generals. And the generals in Egypt are bound and determined that a similar fate does not await them. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, a confidential diplomatic cable, that was released by WikiLeaks in the latest release, was signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to avoid mentioning the name of the opposition leader Ayman Nour during her 2009 meeting with Mubarak, even though Nour’s imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration. Sharif just reported that Al Jazeera is saying that Ayman Nour was just attacked, hit in the head with a rock and now in hospital. Can you talk about the significance of this leaked memo and the significance of Ayman Nour himself? JUAN COLE: Well, Nour, at that time that the memo was written, had just been released from prison by Mubarak, and he leads a relatively small middle-class reform movement. And he did dare to challenge Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections. And as you say, the Bush administration put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to open up those elections. The elections for president in Egypt prior to that had been largely symbolic. They had been a kind of referendum. And of course, in a referendum, you can’t really lose. So, Mubarak responded to this pressure by having the constitution changed so that a number of people could run for president, not just him. And Ayman Nour was one of the ones who ran, but he had been in prison. And Mubarak let him out of prison, let him run. He got seven percent of the vote. And then Mubarak promptly jailed him again after he lost the election. So, Mubarak’s response to American pressure at that time really made a mockery of it. And so, when he let Ayman Nour out of prison shortly before Hillary Clinton’s visit, he was concerned that the Americans not draw attention to this opposition figure, and he requested that no mention be made. And the Americans, you know, are in a difficult position in some ways in Egypt. On the one hand, you know, the State Department does do human rights reports. It does support a widening of civil liberties in these countries. On the other hand, Egypt is a central ally of the United States, and the U.S. would certainly be very unhappy to see it replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood regime that would abrogate the Camp David Accords, would adopt a hostile posture towards Israel possibly, would cease military cooperation with the United States. So, the U.S. is trying to navigate between the shoals of these various dilemmas. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Professor Juan Cole, thank you very much for joining us. Professor Juan Cole is a history—a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He blogs at “Informed Comment.” It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
Continue reading …We’ve waited for this revolution for years. Other despots should quail | Mona Eltahawy
January 29, 2011 No CommentChange is sweeping though the Middle East and it’s the Facebook generation that has kickstarted it My birth at the end of July 1967 makes me a child of the naksa, or setback, as the Arab defeat during the June 1967 war with Israel is euphemistically known in Arabic. My parents’ generation grew up high on the Arab nationalism that Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser brandished in the 1950s. But we “Children of the Naksa”, hemmed in by humiliation, have spent so much of our lives uncomfortably stepping into pride’s large, empty shoes. But here now finally are our children – Generation Facebook – kicking aside the burden of history, determined to show us just how easy it is to tell the dictator it’s time to go. To understand the importance of what’s going in Egypt, take the barricades of 1968 (for a good youthful zing), throw them into a mixer with 1989 and blend to produce the potent brew that the popular uprising in Egypt is preparing to offer the entire region. It’s the most exciting time of my life. How did they do it? Why now? What took so long? These are the questions I face on news shows scrambling to understand. I struggle with the magnitude of my feelings of watching as my country revolts and I give into tears when I hear my father’s Arabic-inflected accent in the English of Egyptian men screaming at television cameras through tear gas: “I’m doing this for my children. What life is this?” And Arabs from the Mashreq to the Maghreb are watching, egging on those protesters to topple Hosni Mubarak who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, because they know if he goes, all the other old men will follow, those who have smothered their countries with one hand and robbed them blind with the other. Mubarak is the Berlin Wall. “Down, down with Hosni Mubarak,” resonates through the whole region. In Yemen, tens and thousands have demanded the ousting of Ali Abdullah Saleh who has ruled them for 33 years. Algeria, Libya and Jordan have had their protests. “I’m in Damascus, but my heart is in Cairo,” a Syrian dissident wrote to me. My Twitter feed explodes with messages of support and congratulations from Saudis, Palestinians, Moroccans and Sudanese. The real Arab League; not those men who have ruled and claimed to speak in our names and who now claim to feel our pain but only because they know the rage that emerged in Tunisia will soon be felt across the region. Brave little Tunisia, resuscitator of the Arab imagination. Tunisia, homeland of the father of Arab revolution: Mohammed Bouazizi , a 26-year-old who set himself on fire to protest at a desperation at unemployment and repression that covers the region. He set on fire the Arab world’s body politic and snapped us all to attention. His self-immolation set into motion Tunisian protests that in just 29 days toppled Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ‘s 23-year dictatorship. We watched, we said wow and we thought: that’s it? Ben Ali ran away that quickly? It’s that easy? Ben Ali called his armed forces for help 27 days into the popular uprising. It took Mubarak just four days into Egypt’s revolt to call the army. He had unleashed the brutality of his security forces and their riot police, but they couldn’t stem the determination of the thousands who continued to demand his ousting. He put Egypt under information lock-down by shutting down the internet, Burmese-junta style, but still they came. Ben Ali’s fall killed the fear in Egypt. So imagine what Mubarak’s fall could do to liberate the region. Too many have rushed in to explain the Arab world to itself. “You like your strongman leader,” we’re told. “You’re passive, and apathetic.” But a group of young online dissidents dissolved those myths. For at least five years now, they’ve been nimbly moving from the “real” to the “virtual” world where their blogs and Facebook updates and notes and, more recently, tweets offered a self-expression that may have at times been narcissistic but for many Arab youths signalled the triumph of “I”. I count, they said again and again. Most of the people in the Arab world are aged 25 or are younger. They have known no other leaders than those dictators who grew older and richer as the young saw their opportunities – political and economic – dwindle. The internet didn’t invent courage; activists in Egypt have exposed Mubarak’s police state of torture and jailings for years. And we’ve seen that even when the dictator shuts the internet down protesters can still organise. Along with making “I” count, social media allowed activists to connect with ordinary people and form the kind of alliances that we’re seeing on the streets of Egypt where protesters come from every age and background. Youth kickstarted the revolt, but they’ve been joined by old and young. Call me biased, but I know that each Arab watching the Egyptian protesters take on Mubarak’s regime does so with the hope that Egypt will mean something again. Thirty years of Mubarak rule have shrivelled the country that once led the Arab world. But those youthful protesters, leapfrogging our dead-in-the-water opposition figures to confront the dictator, are liberating all Egyptians from the burden of history. Or reclaiming the good bits. Think back to Suez to appreciate the historic amnesia of a regime that cares only for its survival. In cracking down on protesters, Mubarak immediately inspired resistance reminiscent of the Arab collective response to the tripartite aggression of the 1956 Suez crisis. Suez, this time, was resisting the aggression of the dictator; not the former colonial powers but this time Mubarak, the dictator, as occupier. Meanwhile, the uprisings are curing the Arab world of an opiate, the obsession with Israel. For years, successive Arab dictators have tried to keep discontent at bay by distracting people with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in 2009 increased global sympathy for Palestinians. Mubarak faced the issue of both guarding the border of Gaza, helping Israel enforce its siege, and continuing to use the conflict as a distraction. Enough with dictators hijacking sympathy for Palestinians and enough with putting our lives on hold for that conflict. Arabs are watching as tens of thousands of Egyptians turn Tahrir Square into the symbol of their revolt. Every revolution has its square and Tahrir (liberation in Arabic) is earning its name. This is the square Egypt uses to remember the ending of the monarchy in 1952, as well as of British occupation. The group of young army officers who staged that coup in 1952 claimed it as a revolution, heralding an era of rule by military men who turned Egypt into a police state. Today, the army is out in Tahrir Square again, this time facing down a mass of youthful protesters determined to pull of Egypt’s first real post-colonial revolution. Egypt Tunisia Yemen Palestinian territories Mona Eltahawy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Images of the thousands of Egyptian protesters that defied a curfew in the capital Cairo and other cities taken throughout the day.
Continue reading …Full video of ‘New Black Panthers’ scene reveals GOP attorneys orchestrating the affair
January 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media [Video from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ] It was pretty obvious from the start that the whole New Black Panthers Party “voter intimidation” controversy was a Breitbart-like right-wing operation intended to gin up fear among white voters, made for heavy airplay on Fox News — and later, to become an Obama-bashing tool, especially in the hands of Bush-appointed right-wing operatives still inside the Justice Department . Now Ryan J. Reilly at TPM Muckraker has a great little scoop demonstrating that this whole scene in fact was being orchestrated by GOP attorneys: It turns out that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has been devoting a great deal of energy to the matter, finally released the full two-and-a-half-minute video showing the New Black Panthers being chatted up by police outside the polling station in Philadelphia — and then afterwards, the “poll watchers” — lawyers hired by the GOP — orchestrating the scene: In the extended version of the footage, posted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this month, a police officer tells Morse to back off. That’s when the commotion begins. The video shows someone off-screen to Morse’s left, telling the officer “I got him, I got him.” A man who appears to be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher who was accused of intimidating voters at the polls by another woman at the location, says “Put it down. You’ve got enough.” Then Bartle Bull chimes in. “Don’t you threaten him with your hands. You’re threatening him. Don’t you use your hands!” Soon an individual seems to grab Morse’s arm or his camera — the screen moves erratically. “I’m a fucking professional videographer,” Morse tells the person trying to stop him from filming. “I was paid… to come from L.A. today.” The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has doggedly pursued the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, released the final version of their report this week, complete with responses from all the commissioners on the panel. Two Democratic commissioners who have dissented from the investigation pointed out the additional footage in their reply and note that while the Justice Department handed over a full copy of the video, the Commission didn’t see fit to post it online until this month, far after the report had been finished. The video shows that the white Republican poll watchers who showed up to the majority African-American precinct knew exactly what kind of media sensation they had on their hands. “We’re on the same team,” says another Republican poll watcher off screen. “You’re fucking up the story. Don’t fuck up the story,” one unidentified poll watcher tells Morse. “You guys are lawyers, I’m a videographer,” Morse says. The USCCR issued its full report , including evidentiary material , earlier this week, and as you can see it’s a pretty divided affair, largely along partisan lines — though in fact conservative Bush appointee Abigail Thernstrom backs up her earlier concerns about the investigation with a brief but scathing dissent: This investigation lacked political and intellectual integrity from the outset, and has been consistently undermined by the imbalance between the gravity of the allegations and the strength of the evidence available to support such charges. Some commissioners offered serious, principled critiques of the process, and questioned the evidentiary record. Their views were contemptuously ignored by the commission’s majority. The majority charges that racial double standards govern the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the Holder Justice Department. If that can be convincingly demonstrated, it will be a grave indictment of this administration. But that evidentiary showing awaits further investigation by the Department of Justice and Congress. I applaud that investigation, and hope that it will shed more light on this important question than the tendentious report provided by the commission’s majority. Indeed. As we explained previously : So a little perspective is perhaps helpful here: There are indeed black racist hate groups (the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors is another ). However, they are dwarfed both in size and in sheer numbers by white racist hate groups. Check the SPLC’s compendium of hate groups and you’ll see what I mean: they outnumber anti-white racists by about 99 to 1. Oddly enough, we never get any reporting about these hate groups from Fox News — except when they want to attack the Department of Homeland Security’s bulletin warning about the rising likelihood of violent terrorism from right-wing extremists . Then, they’re all too eager to simply whitewash away the very existence of white supremacists and far-right terrorists.
Continue reading …