A panoply of activists and opposition groups are maintaining the assault on Hosni Mubarak’s presidency Viewed from above, the protests in Egypt have been impressive to watch on television, with hundreds of thousands of people in motion. In some reports, it’s portrayed as a spontaneous eruption, a leaderless rebellion. But behind the scenes, a panoply of activists and groups are responsible for organising, directing and sustaining the movement against President Hosni Mubarak and his cronies. Young, angry and organised In particular, a movement led by tech-savvy students and twentysomethings – labour activists, intellectuals, lawyers, accountants, engineers – that had its origins in a three-year-old textile strike in the Nile Delta and the killing of a 28-year-old university graduate, Khaled Said , has emerged as the centre of what is now an alliance of Egyptian opposition groups, old and new. Sparked by the April 6 Youth Movement and another group, We Are All Khaled Said , the coalition has established a leadership committee of 10 people that includes Islamists, nationalists, liberals, reformers and Nasserists, and which for the time being has settled on Mohamed ElBaradei , the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as its spokesman and titular leader. But revolutions are messy things, and although the anti-Mubarak coalition is bound together by its distaste for the regime, there’s no telling if it can stay together, especially if the prospect of taking power looms. Who, and what, will emerge on top when Mubarak steps down – and presuming that the Egyptian armed forces don’t decide to put forward one of their own – isn’t clear. But what’s clear is that the masses who’ve packed streets and squares in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, Port Said and Ismailia and other cities are far from leaderless. At the core of the revolt is the April 6 Youth Movement, which runs a veritable war room in downtown Cairo, issuing leaflets, internet missives and guidances to the crowds filling Tahrir Square. The group takes its name from April 6, 2008, when Egyptian authorities cracked down brutally to suppress a strike among textile workers in the gritty industrial town of El Mahalla El Kobra. Despite vigorous efforts by the authorities to suppress and sabotage April 6 and We Are All Khaled Said’s internet presence, both groups have reached out beyond Egypt’s college-educated youth to the unemployed and underemployed, hewing to a strictly secular and pro-reform message. April 6 organiser Ahmed Maher, along with many of his confreres, mode common cause with the more grizzled activists who made up the hardy band of pro-democracy advocates in Egypt, including two dissident groups, Kefaya (“Enough!”) and El Ghad (“Tomorrow”), both set up in 2004, and Maher even used El Ghad’s offices to get started. Kefaya and the reborn democracy movement The democracy movement in Egypt was reborn, to a degree, with the founding of Kefaya in 2004. Kefaya was sparked in part by its support for the intifada in the Palestinian territories in 2000, and it gained energy by joining the fierce opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It drew on an eclectic base that included communists, Nasserists, Islamists and secular activists, and its spokesman was Abdel-Halim Qandil, editor of the Nasserist newspaper al-Arabi. Also in 2004, Ayman Nour, a lawyer and member of Egypt’s parliament, founded El Ghad . Both Kefaya and El Ghad quickly fell foul of the authorities, and Nour was famously imprisoned for speaking out. The 10-member steering committee formed at the height of the Cairo protests in 2011 included several representatives of Kefaya, along with Nour of El Ghad, and Qandil, representing the Nasserist party, plus Osama al-Ghazali Harb of the liberal Democratic Front , established in 2007. Though none of these older movements, who often comprise veterans of Egyptian politics, can be said to have sparked this year’s eruption, they’ve joined it wholeheartedly and anchor it with their activist and pro-reform bona fides. The role of the Muslim Brotherhood Existing in uneasy alliance with the secular groups, of course, is the Muslim Brotherhood . Founded in 1928 in Ismailia by Hassan al-Banna, the secretive Ikhwan (“Brothers”) has long been Egypt’s most powerful opposition group. From the 1930s through the 1960s, the Ikhwan had a paramilitary adjunct and carried out assassinations of top officials and police. But its back was broken under Gamal Abdel Nasser, and in the 1970s Anwar Sadat rehabilitated the Ikhwan and, with strong support from Saudi Arabia, the organisation re-established itself. Since then, it has eschewed violence, and in 2005 candidates supported by the Muslim Brotherhood won scores of seats in parliament. In the recent upsurge in Egypt, the Brotherhood has been at pains to stay in the background, though its decision this week to take part in Monday’s outpouring signalled, perhaps, that the balance had tipped irrevocably against the Mubarak regime. Both inside and outside Egypt , there is concern that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is tightly organised, well funded and maintains a cell structure – along with decidedly reactionary views on social issues and a strong strain of antisemitism – might hijack Egypt’s revolution and impose an Islamist order. Yet the core leadership of the revolt, from April 6 on down, cannot be said to have Islamist leanings, and most experts on Egyptian affairs do not believe that Egypt would readily swallow the ultraconservative views of the Brotherhood’s leaders, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s. In addition, the Egyptian Brotherhood is utterly unlike either the Taliban or Iran’s clerical regime in its outlook. Yet it provides muscle and organisation discipline to the anti-Mubarak movement, and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed al-Beltagui, was quietly included as a member of the leadership committee. ElBaradei, the Nobel peace prizewinner ElBaradei, 68, returned to Egypt last February to explore the possibility of challenging Mubarak in presidential elections scheduled for 2011. He’d already gained widespread fame in Egypt during his tenure at the IAEA for having confronted President George W Bush over falsified claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and again over US alarmism over Iran’s nuclear research programme and he won the Nobel peace prize for his work in 2005. Back in Egypt, he set up the National Association for Change , and he inspired Ahmed Maher and his allies to redouble their efforts. Because of his name recognition, and because he is well respected outside Egypt, the other members of the anti-Mubarak movement – from the April 6 group to the Muslim Brotherhood – designated ElBaradei its leader. Since then ElBaradei has spoken out forcefully, saying that Mubarak “must go”. All of these elements were in place when the spark from a similar revolt in Tunisia fed the flames of rebellion in Egypt. Whether the leadership can maintain its unity is uncertain, especially if and when the question of apportioning power arises. Class differences, disputes over relations with the United States and with Israel, and the possibility of arguments over the role of Islamism in politics can drive wedges into the now-united opposition. More significantly, however, is the sheer weight of the wreckage left after three decades of corruption and economic mismanagement. If the leaders of the Egyptian revolt take power, they’ll inherit staggering problems of how to feed, shelter and employ a vast and growing population that is overwhelmingly young, while, at the same time, navigating the tricky shoals of inter-Arab and Arab-Israeli politics. Like Barack Obama, who inherited an economic collapse and two unfinished wars from his predecessor, the leaders of Egypt’s rebellion might also find that it’s not easy to deliver change that its population can believe in. Egypt Protest Hosni Mubarak Middle East Robert Dreyfuss guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
US president says he spoke to Hosni Mubarak after the Egyptian president’s announcement to serve out his remaining term, and told Mubarak an orderly transition of power in Egypt ‘must begin now’
Continue reading …
Protesters reject President Hosni Mubarak’s announcement that he will continue to rule until the next election and so continue to protest in the city’s Tahrir Square
Continue reading …
Two years after an historic victory that saw the first African-American elected president of the US, Barack Obama has come under pressure. Empire discusses the failures and successes of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Continue reading …
Photo: Flickr, ca2hill , CC When I wrote my reactions to Obama’s State of the Union address last week, I mentioned how disappointing it was that he didn’t take the chance to engage the American public on the issue of climate change. The most common retort to this was along the lines of well, actions speak louder than words — and calling for a vast mobilization of clean energy is practically the same thing. Well, no it ain’t.
Continue reading …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 …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 …Krauthammer Exposes Hypocrisy of Being Called ‘Cranky’ by WaPo Columnist
January 29, 2011 No Comment
In the middle of a rather comical exchange on PBS's “Inside Washington” Friday evening, Washington Post columnist Colby King accused fellow panelist Charles Krauthammer of being “cranky” concerning President Obama's State of the Union address. Not at all surprising to fans of the Fox News contributor, Krauthammer struck back and did so quite impressively (video follows with transcript and commentary): MARK SHIELDS, PBS: There are two kinds of conservatives historically. There’s what I call the five minutes to midnight conservative, that is things are bad and they’re dark and they’re going to get darker, or the five minutes to dawn conservative. And certainly I put in that second category Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, who between them put a smiley face on conservatism. And I think Paul Ryan, unfortunately for his national debut, someone who is well-regarded by many, fell into the category of the five minutes to midnight: things are dark and they’re going to be bleaker and this is the time for cold showers and root canal. GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Five minutes to dawn, five minutes to midnight? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: There are two kinds of Democrats: those who spin and those who tell the truth. What we got from the President was a remarkable speech of spin. He didn’t, the main issue of the November election was debt, size of government, expansion of government. He didn’t even use the word “debt,” the President, until he was 35 minutes into the speech. And what he proposed was essentially nothing, the most trivial of cuts, in a speech in which the first half was all about new stimulus. It’s as if nothing had happened. It’s as if he was going to continue exactly as it was. It’s as if he thinks that the electorate is not serious when it says it wants serious government, shrinking of government and control of debt. NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: The electorate is not serious, and we see that all the time. They want it generically but not specifically. They are not willing to pay to trim programs from… KRAUTHAMMER: In those circumstances, a president should lead and not pander to the, an irresponsible electorate that allows three consecutive years of $1.5 trillion of debt. Everyone knows it’s completely unsustainable, or would you say otherwise? PETERSON: Colby, he’s talking about education , innovation, rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, but again, how you do that with a $1.5 trillion debt? COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: Gordon, there are two kinds of panelists. You have one set that are just cranky. Cranky, cranky, cranky. And then there are the other kind where the milk of human kindness just flows just so freely from them. I am the latter. Moments later: KRAUTHAMMER: Colby. KING: Sir. KRAUTHAMMER: Colby said it was a good speech. We really have to talk about the quote-unquote “investments,” which of course is what Democrats say when they want otherwise to say spending but they won't use the word. And then he said it was okay on that, except that it didn’t address spending, which is a bit like saying, “Yes, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” KING: Cranky, cranky, cranky. KRAUTHAMMER: Spending and debt is the issue of the day. That is the President’s own deficit commission had said, and I thought all of you un-cranky liberals had approved their conclusions. Indeed they had, which raises another interesting point. Totenberg said the electorate is not serious about trimming the budget. She later commented that the cuts being discussed are trivial because discretionary spending is a small part of the budget, and no one wants to talk about reducing entitlements. We've been hearing this a lot lately from liberal media members. Now that the Republicans control the House, folks that came out en masse against any plans to reform Social Security in 2005 are now teasing this subject again. As such, it is really the press that want entitlement cuts generically but are going to balk and balk loudly at the specifics. This is important because what we saw in 2005 is how powerful the media can be in impacting public opinion and preventing legislation. George W. Bush was re-elected with a strong mandate having been the first President since Roosevelt in 1936 to win back the White House while expanding his Party's majority in both chambers of Congress. The public was ready for significant Social Security reform, but the media wasn't having any of it. Instead, so-called journalists – led by minority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – went on a full-court press to shamefully convince the American people the program was fiscally sound for decades to come, and Bush was lying about its imminent insolvency to scare the public into supporting his agenda much as he did with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, six years later, these same folks are mocking any attempts to cut spending by ridiculing Republicans for not going after Social Security and Medicare. It makes you wonder not only how they sleep at night, but also how they so effectively manage their hypocrisy instinctively knowing which side of an argument they need to be on when it fits the prevailing template. Gotta hand it to 'em – this takes talent.
Continue reading …
After the fourth and most deadly day of protest against Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule , the Egyptian president is set to appoint a new government today. Follow all the latest developments and reaction here 10.25am: Peter Beaumont has just rung in from Cairo with the latest from Tahrir Square. He said that although a number of army tanks are parked around the square the military has so far not intervened in the clashes between protesters and the police. The army seems unphased. Some people were even helping the army clear up after yesterday’s demonstrations. Protesters threw stones at riot police trying to enter the square, according to Associated Press. Officers responded with a barrage of teargas and rubber bullets. The army has sealed off the road leading to the parliament and cabinet buildings, the agency reports. Smoke is still billowing from the governing NDP party’s headquarters, which protesters set alight during yesterday’s unrest. 9.57am: Good morning, this is David Batty with the latest from Egypt where President Hosni Mubarak last night made his first appearance after four days of unrest, announcing that he was sacking his cabinet. But his address on state television in which he accused protesters of abusing the freedoms he had given them seems unlikely to appease protesters who are preparing to mount more mass demonstrations against his regime today. Peter Beaumont and Jack Shenker, who are covering the protests for the Guardian, will be filing updates from Cairo throughout the day. We’ll also be bringing you the latest from the UK and international media, including a review of today’s papers. But first, here’s a roundup of the main events overnight and this morning – the fifth day of protests: • Hundreds of anti-government protesters have again taken to the streets of central Cairo today, chanting slogans against Mubarak and clashing with police. Protesters have clashed with riot police trying to enter the central Tahrir Square but soldiers parked in tanks have not yet intervened. • In a late-night TV address, Mubarak dismissed his government and said a new cabinet would be announced today. He refused to step down but promised to promote democracy. He also defended the role of the security forces in tackling the unrest. • Tens of thousands of people took part in protests in Cairo, Suez, Alexandria and other cities yesterday. Demonstrators set fire to the headquarters of the governing NDP party and besieged state TV and the foreign ministry. By this morning, the army had replaced police in guarding government buildings and other key areas around the capital. • Hospital sources said at least 13 people were killed in Suez yesterday and five in Cairo, with more than 1,000 wounded. That brings the death toll since the protests began to 26 people. • Speaking after Mubarak’s TV address, the US president, Barack Obama, said he had spoken at length with the Egyptian leader and urged him to turn “a moment of volatility” into “a moment of promise” . Egypt Protest David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• At least 25 killed on day of violent protest • Mubarak stays but dismisses government • Demonstrators defy nationwide curfew Tanks moved on to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria as protesters in Egypt defied a nationwide curfew ordered by President Hosni Mubarak in an effort to quell the fourth and most violent day of demonstrations against his 30-year rule. In a late-night TV address, Mubarak refused to relinquish power, but dismissed his government, promising a new administration to tackle unemployment and promote democracy. But his call for stability appeared to cut little ice with many protesters, who surged on to the streets as soon as he finished speaking, defying a curfew. Protesters who had earlier been forced into nearby side streets by the military could be heard chanting “People want to change the regime” immediately after Mubarak’s broadcast to the nation finished. One eyewitness said that a small fire had been set at the Mogama building, housing several government offices in the central Tahrir square, which was shrouded by clouds of smoke and teargas. Mubarak, in his first public appearance since unrest broke out four days ago, said on state television: “It is not by setting fire and by attacking private and public property that we achieve the aspirations of Egypt and its sons, but they will be achieved through dialogue, awareness and effort.” Two weeks to the day after Tunisia saw its veteran president flee into exile, the capital of the Arab world’s largest country witnessed extraordinary scenes as tens of thousands of demonstrators braved teargas, rubber bullets and baton charges to vent their fury at repression, poverty, unemployment and corruption. Medical sources said at least five protesters had been killed and 1,030 wounded in Cairo. Thirteen were killed in Suez, and six in Alexandria. A teenager was shot dead in Port Said, al-Jazeera reported. The toll of wounded from other towns and cities was not immediately available. Demonstrators were reported to have stormed the Egyptian state television building in the centre of Cairo. During the day, protesters all over the capital, many of who wrapped themselves in Egyptian flags to show their protest is patriotic, chanted “Mubarak out, Mubarak out” and waved signs proclaiming “game over”. Barack Obama last night warned Mubarak that he must reform his regime and refrain from violence against protesters. But the US president’s message suggested Washington would go on supporting its longstanding ally for now. “When President Mubarak addressed the Egyptian people tonight he pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity,” said Obama. “I told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words. To take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise. Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people, and suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” In another significant development, Mohamed ElBaradei, the former UN weapons chief who may stand in presidential elections later this year, was placed under house arrest for “his own protection” after returning from abroad. The appearance of the army on the streets of Cairo last night was met with a mixed response in different areas of the city. In Tahrir square, the Guardian saw an angry crowd torch two army scout cars after seizing control of them and dragging the soldiers out. Other members of the crowd attempted to protect the injured soldiers, one of them shouting “we salute you”. There were conflicting reports as to whether the army had been firing on the crowd. “The soldiers were overpowered after they arrived in the square. The people don’t know if they are on the people’s side, or the side of the police,” said Sabri al-Ahmed. “But we’re looking after them now. We’re not ignorant people. We Egyptians are kind people.” In the square, the sound of continued fighting was still clearly audible in the area of the American University, near the ministry of the interior, while vehicles were burning in front of the parliament building. From the headquarters of Mubarak’s National Democratic party, flames were billowing from every window. Events accelerated after Friday prayers, with disciplined crowds moving from mosques shouting and raising their hands in an outburst of anger and energy in response to leaflets advising on tactics, slogans and targets. “No one has the right to control you but God,” was the message of one sermon relayed by loudspeaker. “You have the right to speak out, only do it peacefully.” There was little sign of an organised involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest opposition force in Egypt, perhaps because it is biding its time to see how things develop. Mass protests were also staged in Suez, where tanks were reportedly deployed, and Alexandria. Al-Jazeera said 80,000 people were demonstrating in Port Said. The unrest has widened to include Egyptians from all walks of life, old and young, the middle classes and the urban poor. Those who did not take to the streets waved from their balconies or threw water bottles and onions to people in the crowd below to be used against teargas. Others handed out paper facemasks. Soumaya Ghannoushi, page 32 Leader comment, page 34 Egypt Protest Middle East Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …