Seth Meyers Takes Some Jabs at President Obama, Biden and Others at Correspondents Dinner
May 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Donald Trump and the field of potential GOP presidential candidates weren’t the only ones Saturday Night Live’s Seth Meyers had a bit of fun with at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this year. He also gave President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Paul Ryan and our leaders in Congress who are proud of “adult conversations” and yammering on about bills being too long to read some grief as well. He also got a shot in at the “tea party” and Ginni Thomas. After complimenting Michelle Obama for how good she looked right now compared to the day President Obama was inaugurated, Meyers said this: MEYERS: Now you on the other hand Mr. President, have aged a little. What happened to you? When you were sworn in you looked like the guy from the Old Spice commercial. Now you look like Louis Gossett Senior. I’ve never said this to anyone before, but maybe you should start smoking again. Is this the change you were talking about? Mr. President look at your hair. If your hair gets any whiter the tea party is going to endorse it. Oh, I’m going to get an angry voice mail from Ginni Thomas in 19 years. President Obama took the ribbing pretty well tonight which is more than I can say for Donald Trump who looked like he was sucking on a lemon by the time this thing was over. Granted Meyers went a whole lot easier on the President, but I’m curious how Trump’s going to react after tonight because everyone knows his ego isn’t going to let the roasting he just took go without him saying something about it. No one can honestly say that Trump should not have seen this coming after all of the birther, racist crap the corporate media has allowed him to go out there and spew for the last couple of weeks or that he didn’t deserve to get skewered for it at this event. I await Trump melting down on national television in 10… 9… 8…
Continue reading …ABC Highlights Dem Claims of ‘Drastic’ Medicare Cuts as Political ‘Gift’ to Democrats
May 1, 2011 No Comment
Continue reading …
Disappearance of male choir after landing at Heathrow had prompted an immigration inquiry and headlines around the world Ten members of a Nepalese male choir, who sparked a nationwide hunt and an investigation by the UK Borders Agency after they disappeared from Heathrow, have turned up in fine voice after going missing for three days – explaining that they just got lost leaving the airport. On Tuesday, a coach had travelled the 250 miles to London to bring the choir to the Cornwall Male Voice Choir Festival but, despite the driver spending hours searching for them, they could not be found. The organisers of the festival – which ends on Monday– with 3,500 singers in more than 60 choirs to keep track of, were also hit by the illness of a key staff member, and the fact a Russian choir was refused an exit visa to travel when the singers were waiting on the runway to board their plane. The organisers spent hours on the phone trying to work out what had happened to the Nepalese men, first assuming they had missed their flight. They established that all their travel documents and visas were in order, and they had landed at Heathrow and then apparently vanished. They were reported missing, presumed absconded, an immigration inquiry was launched, and the news caused headlines round the world. David Peters, who is the joint organiser of the festival, said: “I will advise anyone looking to publicise a festival to lose a Nepalese choir.” Three days later when the choir had already missed its first scheduled appearance, the festival organisers got a call to say the singers had taken a wrong turn out of the airport and were at a house in Wembley. Their coach headed back to London to collect them and the second in their series of planned concerts and workshops went ahead without a hitch. Nepal Immigration and asylum Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Other countries believe their agricultural expertise can kickstart an agrarian revolution across the African continent They are calling it the next great trek . Almost two centuries after Boers hitched their wagons to oxen and headed inland to establish the South African republic, they are on the move again. This time they are flying – and their destination is the whole of the African continent. White South African farmers are now being courted by the north, by countries who believe their agricultural expertise can kickstart an agrarian revolution across the continent. They are being offered millions of hectares of allegedly virgin rainforest and bush, as well as land already farmed by smallholders or used as pastures by herders. In the biggest deal to date, Congo-Brazzaville has offered South Africa farmers long leases on up to 10m hectares of land, an area that includes abandoned state farms and bush in the remote south-west of the country. The first contracts, which put 88,000 hectares in the hands of 70 farmers, were signed at a ceremony in the country last month. Meanwhile, in Mozambique, some 800 South African farmers have acquired a million hectares in the southern province of Gaza, thanks to an arrangement set up by sugar farmer Charl Senekal, an associate of the South African president, Jacob Zuma. This deal will be celebrated at a ceremony in Pretoria next month. There have been sporadic moves north by white South African farmers since the end of apartheid. But the current migration is more organised, says Ruth Hall of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. “South Africa is exporting [not just] its farmers, but also its value chains, to the rest of the continent,” she told a meeting on international land grabs in Brighton last week . The mass movement is mostly organised by Agri South Africa , an association that represents 70,000 South Africa farmers. Its president, Johannes Moller, made a pitch for new deals at a conference on large-scale farming in Africa, held in Cairo last April. Since then, Agri SA has received offers of land from 22 African countries, says Hall. Along with free land come tax holidays, free rein to export produce and profits, and promises of new roads and power lines – angering local peasants who have never enjoyed such benefits. Zambia wants South African pioneers to grow maize, and Sudan is offering land and irrigation water to grow sugar cane. Another deal, currently on hold, would see them take over 35,000 hectares of Libya. With one-third of South Africa’s white-owned farmland to be transferred to black owners by 2014, many white South African landowners are keen to find new territory, though most want to keep their home farms as well, says Hall. The new trek is attracting support from major South African finance houses such as Standard Bank and investment funds such as Emergent Asset Management, a UK-South Africa fund run by former Goldman Sachs high flyer Susan Payne. She claims to be investing in 14 African countries and promises a 30% annual return. Many African countries believe the new white farmers can end their reliance on food imports. But the farmers and their financiers often have other plans. According to Theo de Jager, Agri SA deputy president and mastermind of the international deals, the farmers in Congo-Brazzaville want to grow more profitable tropical fruit for export to European supermarkets, rather than grains for locals. Another concern is what land the farmers are being offered. The governments making overtures towards claim there is ample “empty” land – in which case the threat is that forests and other biodiversity hotspots will be gobbled up. But much of the land is, in reality, already occupied by farmers and pastoralists. While the Congo-Brazzaville government says the land it is handing over to white South Africans has been empty since the closure of state farms more than 10 years ago, Hall says its former owners have returned and are growing cassava and peanuts. Like the original trek, the new invasion is likely to be met with resistance. Farming Food South Africa International land deals Fred Pearce guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Deraa is the centre of the revolt against the Assad regime. Here, a resident of a village on its outskirts describes life under siege There was shooting again last night. It has become routine. We haven’t slept more than two hours at a time since the shooting began. It stops and then starts again. There is maybe one hour break between shooting. We are like hostages in our homes. We are surrounded by tanks. Yesterday we heard another three were killed. They were trying to go out to support the martyrs from Deraa, and the army shot them. They were only young; 18, 19, 22. There were more injured as well – 16 more from here but I don’t know how many more nearby, because we can’t communicate. We are distributing all the injured among the houses because we are not allowed to take them to hospitals. We are trying to treat them for gunshot wounds inside the houses, but we don’t have any medical equipment, we don’t have any anaesthetics or even enough bandages– just basic first aid. Some of them are critical. There is no medical aid at all, and the doctors who try to treat the wounded are being arrested or shot. We haven’t had any electricity for five days now, and no water. There’s no gas. We are living by candlelight at night. We don’t have any food. We are surviving on the pickled vegetables that we store over the year, that’s all we have left to eat. We had tank water but today we heard the army has shot the tanks. Yesterday the army came to the houses and ordered the women to come out. They handed them loaves of bread and held guns to their heads then made them hand them to people in front of the state television cameras, so it looked like we had food and that everything is fine here. It’s not and we don’t have any food. I don’t know what happened to the bread. Anyone here who leaves the house is being shot. There are snipers on every building and the army is in the streets. We are just staying inside now, because you know now that if you try to leave the house, you are already a dead man. They will shoot anything that moves. And if soldiers refuse to fire on people, they are executed. These are all the fourth division soldiers in uniform. They even shot a little girl, Shiraz. She was just playing in front of her house and they shot her. We still have not been able to bury her because they are shooting at the funerals. Another pregnant woman was killed. She was in her eighth month and they shot her. She was just trying to get to the doctor. This is how brutal they are. There are still 37 people that we haven’t buried. We have had to store them in refrigerators or in the houses. We can’t bury them because they are shooting on the funerals. We can’t take them to the cemetery, so we built a small cemetery close to my village here where we are burying some of the dead. I heard that in the town centre there are still corpses in the street. Today the soldiers have been coming from house to house and arresting a lot of the men. We have nowhere to go. The kids are not going to school. They are afraid, of course, but I am telling them the truth, that we are doing this for freedom. We have been 40 years without freedom under this regime and we need to fight. This president is worse than Hitler. It’s dangerous for me to talk on the phone, but we need to do this. We will do whatever it takes for the world to hear our stories and hear what is really happening here. We need people to know that the rumours that the state television is saying, that there are terrorists and Salafi groups are not true. We are all one family here. There is no difference between us, whether we are Christian, Muslim, Druze, Shia, Sunni, it doesn’t matter. We need people to know this – come and see how the army is killing our children, our women and parents. If the rumours were true, why don’t they let the world come in and see? We want to send our message to the whole world to stand with us. They are sending messages from the UN and the EU, and we thank the countries that are standing with the Syrian people for what we are asking for. But we need more help from the Arab leaders to have the courage to stand with us. We need an investigation into the killing. We need people to see with their own eyes what is happening here. We want to thank all the European countries and the US and the UK and we ask the Russians not to stand with the regime by supporting them and supplying them with weapons. We also want to thank the King of Jordan for keeping the mobile phones from Jordan open, which has been the only way we can communicate. We don’t need anything, but a safe passage out of here and for the world to hear the truth. Thank you for listening to our story. The resident was speaking via satellite phone to Lauren Williams in Beirut Syria Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Protest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Michele Bachmann supports Ryan’s budget plan, but shows her concerns for Seniors by adding an ‘asterisk’ to her vote
May 1, 2011 No CommentMichele Bachmann joined Chris Wallace on FNS to discuss many things, including her support of drastically cutting Medicare and Medicaid to seniors. She voted for Paul Ryan’s junk science budget which turns Medicare into a voucher system and she also supports a much worse version of it that was released by a Republican study committee , but then tried to worm her way out of her positions by saying that she is worried seniors will have to pay more for their health care. I guess she does look at polls from time to time. But how does she show her concern? By putting an asterisk next to seniors. WTF? WALLACE: What do you tell people nearing retirement who say ‘I can’t afford to pay more of my own healthcare costs out of pocket?’ Which is what the Ryan and Republican Study Committee plans would do. BACHMANN: And I understand that. I put an asterisk on my support, I put a blog posting up that said just as much. That is my area of concern, I support this bill with that proviso. … One position that I’m concerned about shifting the cost burden to senior citizens. Seniors are saying, look, I’m not in a position to be able to handle that. I also share that real fear, that’s why I put that asterisks out there . WALLACE: So you’re not wedded to the idea of a voucher program for Medicare? BACHMANN: I’m wedded to the idea of efficiencies and cost cuttings and savings in healthcare, but how we get there is open to discussion. Did you know that asterisks fix everything? Cris Wallace should have said that asterisks are imaginary and votes are real. Does Bachmann believe in unicorns too? Conservatives aren’t serious when it comes to helping Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security so why do they occupy so much air time on my TV? They can always lie on the tube when their positions have clearly been stated. Remember when she said Americans needed to be weaned off these programs? On Thursday, in an op-ed on Red State, Bachmann wrote that while she supports most of the GOP budget, “ I’ve expressed caution about how we approach the issue of Medicare.” Considering that Bachmann has previously said we must “ wean everybody ” off Medicare and Social Security, her new hesitancy to do so belies the extremely unpopular nature of the GOP plan.
Continue reading …
Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …