 by Chris HayesStory of the Week, Up w/ Chris Hayes |
COMMENTARY
The video of Mitt Romney talking to donors that Mother Jones posted last week is an incredible artifact from an entire culture and civilization that exists in our midst, but which we hardly ever get to see: the world of the high-end donor. And, whoo boy it is not pretty. The first thing that jumps out is that a lot of the questions are really inane.
In fact, I almost feel sorry for Mitt Romney having to sit there and politely smile and nod as donors pick through their salad and tell him that what he really needs to do to win is "take the gloves off" or "show your face more on tv"—something he's been doing more or less non-stop.
The folks in the room all but advise Romney to simply tour around the country reading passages of Ayn Rand novels out loud at his campaign rallies and hectoring the idiotic masses to bow before their obvious superior. Romney, who is many things, but not a total fool, gently explains that that probably is not the best way to go about attempting to win over the Obama voters he needs to be elected. Almost none of the advice Romney gets during the tape is very good, some of it's terrible.
That's not novel, of course, everyone who watches politics closely thinks they have the secret insight that will win the election. Unlike the millions of other political junkies and backseat drivers, this small coterie of folks, by sole virtue of their wealth, gets to impose their invaluable insights on the actual candidate. It would be like the head coach of the Giants, Tom Coughlin, having to spend most of the week between games meeting with the opinionated fans who call into sports talk radio with their theories about how the Giants should be blitzing on every down, or lining up two quarterbacks under center.
This is the power of money not just in politics, but in society more broadly: the power to make people listen to your ideas no matter how dumb or uninformed. The other thing that stood out to me was just how under siege, persecuted, and victimized these extremely wealthy people appear to feel.
Keep in mind we're talking about a fundraiser that cost $50,000 a plate. Fifty thousand dollars also happens to be the median household income in the U.S. So the kind of wealth you need to have to be in the room with Romney is the kind of wealth that means you can just pony up as much money as many Americans make in a year to listen to Mitt Romney trash talk the very people who make in a year the same amount you just ponied up for dinner.
And what you hear from them is the same kind of whining that was the central theme of the Republican Convention: we're away from our families five days a week. I'm away from my four girls five days a week and my wife. Which made me think of this from Reservoir Dogs:
Steve Buscemi: You know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses.
Except, you know, instead of waitresses insert busy plutocrats. Because these same plutocrats are enjoying possibly their best run ever since the financial crisis, nay since, perhaps, the roaring twenties! The Dow is way up, corporate profits are near record highs, taxes are near record lows, wages are stagnating, unions are fighting for survival and 8% unemployment means that employers have a constant ready supply of excess labor, which keeps wages and demands down. More or less a capitalist paradise.
The Koch brothers, to choose just one example, have seen their own net worth nearly DOUBLE, from $32 billion to $62 billion under the tyrannical, socialist, re-distributive regime of Barack Hussein Obama.
And yet despite the fact that Obama has managed a recovery that has been exceptionally good to them, Wall Street is incensed that anyone would call them fat cats or sign new financial regulation. In almost every way conceivable they inhabit an alternate universe. And everyone's pretty frank about that.
For instance, they ask him several questions about foreign policy, and Romney complains that voters in general don't care about foreign policy, so he doesn't get to talk about it that much on the campaign trail. This is probably because middle class voters are so concerned about economic security it crowds out nearly everything else.
But that's the point. Extremely wealthy people are not a very good representation of the voting population at large. They have very different politics, positions and priorities than the mass of voters. This cashes out in a very concrete way that profoundly affects our politics.
Political Scientists Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright have been studying the divergence between public opinion in general and the opinions of the wealthiest 1% and found that—surprise—they diverge on most issues. For instance, on this statement: "The federal government should spend whatever is necessary to ensure that all children have really good public schools they can go to"... 87% of the general public agrees, while only 35% of the wealthy do. "Our government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich." 52% of the general public agrees, only 17% of the wealthy do. "Favor cuts in spending on domestic programs like Medicare, education, and highways in order to cut federal budget deficits." 27% of the general public does, while 58% of the wealthy do.
And this gets us to what I've become convinced is the most pernicious effect of big money on our politics. It's not that lots of money can buy elections, though sometimes that's true. It's not that campaign contributions function as a quid pro quo, chits to be cashed in when legislation is being considered, though that's also often true. It's that every single person running for high office in America is forced to spend the vast majority of their time around one group of people and one group only: wealthy people. That's who they talk to, and listen to all day long, day in and day out, every day for months and years and decades. It's an incredibly warping effect.
Imagine a world in which every minimum wage worker in America is given a golden ticket, like the ones in Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. And imagine a law that required TV stations to only take those golden tickets as payment for campaign advertising time. A world in which candidates would have to spend all the time they now spend with the folks on that video with the people who work at drive-throughs and clean bathrooms. And imagine the kinds of questions they would get, the stories and jokes they would hear. Many hours a day, day in and day out. The world that the candidate would be forced to inhabit. Imagine what our politics would look like as a result. Maybe things would be radically different, maybe they'd be more similar to the status quo than I'd like to admit. But one thing is for sure.
Mitt Romney sure as hell wouldn't get up in front of a room of home healthcare workers, people who are, in many states, making minimum wage or just a little more to change bed pans and clean up blood and vomit—and tell the people in front of him that they're a bunch of indolent, shiftless moochers who won't take responsibility for their lives becuase they don't pay income taxes. I don't think even Mitt Romney is that politically inept.
Leave a Comment:
I love your show Chris. My absolute favorite of all political shows. Loving your book. Love the panels. But why liberals feel the need to have a**hole liars on the air (yes, the Emil Henryguy) always stuns. What does not stun me is how easily guys like this Romney tool LIE on the air, off the air, in the papers, in their secret fundraisers. They do it all the time and while you called him on his lies about unions......the casual right wing nutcase will swear on his mother's grave that the liars are telling the truth. I am struggling to NOT change the channel because I like you, Chris, so much. But really, we, your regular viewership, KNOW these tools can lie without so much as blinking an eye. I really prefer in depth discussions from intelligent honest folks.
the fact is the conservatives believe what they say. their world view is that everybody agrees with them . so in their mind they are not lying. what they don't understand is that everyone is not conservative. in polls people say they are conservative but they like social security, medicare, medicaid, planned paerthood, npr,pbs and so on. so in reality they are not conservative. they are liberal or moderates. the right has muddied the word liberal to the point that people are embarrased to say they are liberal.
Someone has to demonstrate the point of view being argued against. The fact that that side of the argument ALLOWS liars on the air to present their views only demonstrates how hollow their position is. Like entertainers, they can only be as good as their material. Pity them, just do not vote for them.
Guys like Chris Hayes, Bill Maher and Thom Hartmann believe that there's value in engaging the right and directly disputing their lies to their faces. It can provide an excellent teaching tool on how to argue against those talking points for those who have to see the RWNJ uncle at holiday dinners.
Joseph Mc Gonigle:
"Like entertainers, they can only be as good as their material. Pity them, just do not vote for them."
Are you saying that all/most/some Democrats and their media supporters tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? They NEVER lie about anything? Really?
I said nothing about Democrats. I am saying that if conservatives can find no one better to represent them on shows like this than people who only repeat the lies from the Romney/Ryan campaign then the problem is with the positions, not necessarily with the representatives. If they really believe what they are saying is the truth, more is the pity. Either way, we must still keep liars out of office.
Awesome article talking about the effect of wealthy donors on the presidential campaign
I love the show! Chris you are amazing the way you interact with your guests. I enjoy the open give and take of ideas. you usually do a really good job of managing the flow so no one totally dominates and everyone is heard.
I liked the intro on this topic. It is a shame that you get someone on, even beamed in, that won't stick with the topics and who has his own agenda. Mr. Henry is an arrogant A$$. Can he not give a straight answer?? He sounds like Romney. Is there something in the water "those people" are drinking? Can you just cut his part short???? He adds nothing to this conversation. I would much prefer to hear from the guests at the table.
No he was just a free ad for Romney's campaign.
Emil,
Romney's adviser unintentionally turns off every one on the left...what a personification of self entitled RICH a$$wipes, continually ranting about 14 yo Obama tape.
@BoyInBOYCOTT....
If you stop and think about it, the "talking heads" like Neal Boortz, are really doing more advertising for Mr.Obama, with their "ranting" about a 14 yo Obama Tape, and pouncing on everything they disagree with. The more they SAY his name, the harder they imprint him in the minds of the Voter, and Mr.Obama, through no fault of his own, is getting more "name recognition" than Mr. Romney is.
As an Independant, I am not tied to any one party, and Mr. Romney is a "supply sider" whose experience as Governor, of Mass. and a CEO, are hardly qualifications to run these 50 States, as POTUS. He lacks International experience, and he is, as you said, milling around with a totally out of touch upper class of people. The average person sees him as SO out of touch, with working class America that they see him as wanting to take over America as a CEO, instead of a SERVER of the PEOPLE. What's wrong with THAT picture? He does not become our Boss, when he occupies the White House, and we are not his employees, and that I believe is why people don't like him. He does not have the attitude that he wants to "SERVE", rather that he should be King for four years. Pathetic, and I feel very sorry for him. He has yet, to honestly inform anyone, of how HE could be the solution to the very things he criticizes about Mr. Obama. Waffling, depending on whom he is talking to, makes him appear to be unstable, and we don't need anyone who may be unstable, running this Country. Keep up the great work on your show, I love it. It is refreshing to know that people half my age, refuse to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Hold their feet to the fire! God Bless America.
I've been thinking that Presidential candidates should be required to participate in an episode of "Undercover Boss" before the election. They can spend a week as soldiers, teachers, factory workers, the unemployed looking for jobs etc. I'm fairly certain it would be eye opening to both the candidates and the electorate.
Pretty sure POTUS would do very WELL. Romney.not.
What Romney's adviser is a person trained to keep the wealthy protected by influencing policy making. Everything is distribution of wealth. When any kind of currency passes from strata of society to another that is distribution Where:
A(B+C)=AB+AC the algebraic law of distribution. When a peson receives their quarterly statement there is a DISTRIBUTION BOX.
When money gets paid for goods and services that is distribution. When benefits get paid to beneficiaries that is distribution. When a person has to pay more taxes so others pay less that is distribution. If Romney thinks most people don't understand about distribution of wealth he is more out of touch than what I thought. The fact that his plan will eliminated the capital gains tax from people who can afford to pay more taxes than the 47% of the population he was talking about, makes him a person who does not want to pay taxes and want to use is power to change the law so HE and his cronies don't pay such taxes.
What he wants to do is the Distribution law in reverse. Take A from B and C to give 0 tax liability to the WEALTHY. And that is what the wealthy expects from this election. That is why they gave so much to his campaign.
The more Mr. Henry talks the the more stupid he sounds!!! If you confront him with an error (lie) that he has made he just changes the subject. At first I wanted you to cut his part short. Now, I am glad that he was allowed to continue. The more he talks the more arrogant, out of touch, condesending and dishonest he sounds. He just exposed himself as the vile person he is without help from anyone else at the table !!!!!!!!
Love the show. Don't mind the Emil Henry's being on once in a while to remind us, in case we need reminding after the Romney tape this week, how shallow their political and economic arguments. For example, Obama is "transactional" because he has support from unions? And the 47% feel "entitled". Oh yes, the 1% doesn't in any way feel "entitled" to keep their money by lower taxation because they are the makers, not the takers. Please!
Keep up the good work.
Dear Chris,
Thank you for the show. I was just wondering if anyone else noticed that Emil Henry, shown from a summer/beach house (white bead board wall - not a NY or DC apartment), was backed by a cabinet displaying lots and lots of valuable antique OYSTER PLATES! - while republicans pretend they are not sending plutocratic messages, and denying the validity of being tagged with the stigma of class warfare. Not much sensitivity to visuals there.
The visual I noticed was the flag in a box.
Spent most of the time yelling at the TV (and scaring the cat).
He was just spouting the same old laundry list of distortions - a "data dump".
I would be interested in Chris having him on the show in person - but to limit conversation to a specific topic.
i thought the plates looked a bit large for deviled eggs...does this mean i'm on the wrong side of 47%?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the inarticulate statements about the "47%" by Governor Romney were in reference to campaign strategy and where he has to concentrate efforts to get enough votes to be elected. The implication that all rich Republicans are ignorant and insensitive to the needs of those that require help is ridiculous. The mere fact this man singly contributes over 4 million dollars a year to charities proves his understanding and empathy to the situations of those financially burdened citizens.
Truth is small tax increases and elimination of loopholes will affect the lives of the super rich minimally. The biggest threat to all of us is the uncontrollable spending and increasing debt that someone eventually has to pay. Chances are, the rich will once again see very little change in their everyday lives and the middle class will shoulder the bulk of the burden.
Think of it this way. Accountants look at a spreadsheet in proportions. Business and Personal Expenses, Investment and Re-investments, so on and so on including a column for giving back. This column could include things like taxes and charity contributions and is set at a certain percentage, as with all the columns. If the government increases taxes on the rich I suspect it will be balanced either with increased income or decreased expenses. In other words the middle class will burden the bulk of all tax increases on anyone either through lower payrolls and perks, higher costs of goods or services, or less charitable contributions. It just makes sense to an accountant or anyone in business.
I'm sure there are rich Republicans and Democrats that give a crud less about those less fortunate, but from what I've seen, Governor Romney isn't one of them and to make those implications or suggestions is really quite ridiculous and just feeds to the us against them social war that is manufactured by the liberal media to take smart people's focus off the real problems.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is when a Republican says they want less government, balanced budget, and reduced debt they are not suggesting to take away from or ignore anyone but to support and give back to everyone more efficiently through fiscal and personal responsibility.
If the Republicans presented themselves in that tone this debate would be more civil; they do not and it is not. Whether or not the video represents the true Mitt Romney it demonstrates that there is a class of people that wants to toss the 47% off the boats that the tide lifts. They listened to Mr. Romney and thought these ideas and attitudes were GOOD THINGS. That attitude and public service do not mix.
I applaud Mr. Romney for contributing $4 million to charity out of $13.7 million (29.2%), and I encourage more such generosity from everyone but that is not the point. The blatant way he used his tax numbers to try to look better to the public and distract from the exposure of his attitude towards the 47% (99%?) demonstrates a lack of respect for the citizens of this nation that also does not mix with public service.
The President of the United States is the highest ranking public servant in the nation; it is well past time Mr. Romney started acting like one and I do not believe it is in his character to do so.
I just had to listen to 1 minute of Emil's comments to know where he was going. He was going against the unions. It is quite evident to me that Mitt and his cohorts want to do away with unions because they want to be "free. They want to be able to send their businesses abroad so that they can find the cheapest labor possible to increase their PROFIT. They appear to be more concerned about this than really helping this country improve its economy. After all, Mitt has much of his money in various accounts throughout the world. This group of conservatives without consciences truly believe in the "values of selfishness."
We built that
Alas, it's these bubbleheads again,
They think they live in a vacuum -
So if they were flowers not men,
Could I plant them on the moon?
If they are so crisply self-sufficient,
I guess, it should be fair to deduct,
Had they been born, say, in the Orient,
They'd be just as successfully smug?
But of course they could just as well
Set up sliced-pork business in the desert,
They can sell whatever there is to sell,
If something fails, they'll just divert!
Actually, I admire these guys, because they don't need no thing, not anyone,
No streets, skilled labor, no consumers - they are systems of their own.
In a reply to a comment (#9.1), I used the term "data dump". This popped in my head when I thought about Emil Henry's statements.
Not being sure what this term might mean to other people I googled it and found this:
----------
Web page about resisting persuasion: {delete space between first two //}
http:/ /changingminds.org/techniques/resisting/data_dump.htm
"Cover them in information, so much so that they’ll spend forever trying to wade through this endless detail. It helps to give them good quality information, but if in doubt, you can put low-grade rubbish at the bottom to fill out the pile."
"People have bounded rationality and can only process so much information at once, after which they get confused."
"By using the 'data dump', you can appear very collaborative whilst severely muddying their waters by giving them more information than they can easily process."
"The data dump can also be used to hide the needle in the haystack, giving them the information that they do need, but surrounding it with lots of other extraneous data that cloaks the real information. This also allows you to truthfully tell others that you have given the person the requisite information, whilst minimizing the chance that they will find it."
---------
Oh Yeah - that sounds familiar!!!!!
I have had people tell why they won't vote for President Obama - or read a post - that is exactly that. "DUMP".
I'm then left kind of stunned - amazed at the sheer volume of inaccuracy, misconception and distortion - and wondering where on earth to start - and even if it is even worth trying.
They then can claim that they tried to have a reasonable debate, but I was unable to respond.
Notwithstanding any essential needs to the body politic, our collective focus should be create, by constitutional amendment, a bright line between the public and private sector, at all levels of government. This act alone will rid the system of its corrupting pathology. However, for the long term, civics education must be seen as an essential and immutable part of self governance if the republic is to survive. This is absolutely necessary since e pluribus unum is not merely a motto but a paradigm of Nature. It is expressed in the word "unitarity"- the sum total of all possibilities and probabilities is One". It is the etymological meaning of the word "universe"- all things turned into One. And it governs all systems of Nature and Man e.g. the human brain (the regulator) is not the seat of human consciousness but its focal point. Thus, the only reason government (any government) can exist is to serve "the people". Out of many, One!
Wow "...Our government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich." 52% of the general public agrees, only 17% of the wealthy do. "...
The 100%-52%=48% must not be be paying attention.
In coffee house discussions I am always amazed (saddened) that some of the most fervent 1% supporters are people that are within the lower middle class.
This is the time-honored way to fight plutocracy. Add your clause and pass it along to the Egyptians, Libyans and anyone else in the 99% that can use it to get on the same page as free speaking peoples.
When in the course of human events it became necessary for our leaders to dissolve the political bonds which connected them to others and assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled them, their respect for the opinions of humanity compelled them to enumerate the causes, and their vision, courage and determination to end tyranny guided them to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the protection of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They established this nation, and the history of this nation is a chronicle of the struggle to provide these rights to all people, here and abroad. Common sense dictates that we do not discard the government and institutions that have advanced that struggle further than any other in the history of humanity. But when rich and powerful forces in society use and abuse the rights and freedoms secured by these institutions to reserve these riches, powers, rights and freedoms for themselves and reduce all other people to poverty and deprivation and subject these people to their tyranny with the consequence of degrading the global habitat, subjecting it to stresses that, unrelieved, will destroy its power to sustain the people, then it is the right and the duty of the people to counter these forces and restore the rights, freedoms and habitat all people need to thrive. Such is the current state of affairs and such is the necessity which compels the people to identify and abolish these abuses. We submit these facts to a candid world.
The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Russia have identified and remedied, with varying degrees of success, the abuses by their rulers designed to enrich themselves and keep their peoples in a state of poverty and tyranny. The current Administration has taken measures and instituted policies that support such remedies without affecting the sacred right of these peoples to choose their own safeguards of their inalienable rights. This is in direct opposition to the policies of the previous Administration which sought to dictate and manage this change in sovereign nations and the critics who represent the forces that benefit from such policies. These events demonstrate the extent these forces endeavor to exercise their control of human events and the measures needed to abolish such control for the benefit of humanity.
The vast majority of scientific research on global climate change leads to the conclusion that our environment is warming at a dangerous rate due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. This change is reliably linked by the same research to human activity involving fossil fuels. This research has predicted that this warming can destroy the planet as a habitat for human life. The forces that benefit from this current state have advanced scientists to challenge the conclusions of this research in order to postpone or forestall the steps necessary to remedy our climate. These scientists risk being discredited by the scientific community due to the preponderance of evidence against their position in this debate. This obstruction of scientific inquiry that sustains these forces threatens all of humanity.
(Note: Everyone is entitled to add to this in order to represent all points of view. Others can take on the financial crisis, the Gulf Oil Spill, Congressional deadlock, Citizens United, state laws targeting collective bargaining rights, voting rights, reproductive rights – any subject you feel affects the 99%. The only requirement is that the statement be factual. Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that the Founding Fathers saw fit to include only truths, not opinions, in their causes; it is up to us to do the same. Good luck!)
During all these incidents the people sought to accommodate the rich and powerful forces in order to preserve themselves and their posterity. Such accommodation only engendered further abuse and attempts to increase their riches and power over the people. We still seek accommodation since the rich and powerful share humanity with us and, therefore, are equally entitled to these rights and freedoms. We will treat them as we treat everyone in the struggle to preserve these rights, freedoms and habitat – condemn them as oppressors, welcome them as partners.
We, therefore, unite to call for justice over tyranny, fairness over greed, and global survival over destruction. Humanity, at this point in history, requires no less.
Well stated Joseph. I enjoyed your post very much!
Thank you. I am curious to see what you would add and hope you pass it along.
While I agree in theory with your comments to suggest the us against them is Democrats against Republicans is really narrow minded. To believe this Administration and the Democrats solely have the interests of American citizens at heart is, well let's just say, actions speak louder than words.
Let's take the Affordable Health Care Act as example. If the true motivation of the law is to provide affordable health care to all why would politicians mandate people to subscribe to an abusive and expensive private industry? My personal experience with health care is the insurance companies have bullied the system into accepting rates at 7-10 times less than those charged to a cash paying customer. Is the cash paying customer subsidizing the true costs through bloated invoices? Would a law that required providers to accept the same rates from cash paying customers as they do from insurance companies allowed even more access to the public? Does this requirement create a new 1%, owners of health insurance companies, supported by the government?
The economic depression we are currently experiencing was largely due to the housing debacle. Whenever the government experiences a crisis, even though the true pain is felt within the middle class, the instant solution is to feed and fix the problem from the top. Instead of giving hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to banks and financial institutions would the solution have better cured the true pain to use the tax dollars to reduce mortgages to the current market value? This would have cured the crisis with the banks AND the middle class instead of pushing families from their homes and leaving those that do stay in their houses to suffer the mistakes with underwater mortgages. Why is the paid back money from TARP and TARF, that was earmarked to be returned to the general fund, being held by a privately owned Federal Reserve with the blessings of this Administration? Why are taxpayers still on the hook for risky investment banking?
President Obama stated on a late night talk show last week that the unbelievable size of the current US debt and deficit is not an immediate problem. huh? Does this mean he supports the siphoning of over 9 billion taxpayer dollars a week to the 1% in interest on federal loans?
Truth is a majority of Congress and the people that make our laws are in the top 20% bracket and they make laws that service themselves from both sides of the aisles. Whenever a politician from either party says "We can't pass that because those OTHERS are blocking us" is political code for "I don't really want to do it so I blame the other side to pander to my constituents".
I would suggest to judge by actions, not words, and follow the money. The us against them in reality is the American public against the Establishment. The manufactured Democrats against Republicans is a farce created to distract from the actions of the powers that be.
I know you have asked not to interject opinion but.....
In my opinion, the only true solution to this problem is campaign contribution reform and term limits.
Good luck getting any Establishment Republican or Democrat support on that!
FromDownHere
The views you expressed are as valid as anyone' but that is beside the point. The point is: if you have an issue distill it into a clause and add it here, only make sure of all the facts. So, what is your issue and how do you want to phrase it?
Chris,
I just read the NY Times article about you and the show written back in June. They wrote that you were " Generation Y’s wonk prince". That may be true, but the 73 year old living in Phoenix where the show airs at 5:00 AM never misses a show. True, I have to record it, but you, your guests and and iced coffee gets these open and alert.
What an incredibly rational, yet entertaining, view on the effect of "old" money donors and their influence on candidates. Well done.
Noam Chomsky claims that "civil society" has been redefined to mean only the investor class. Apparently like everyone else, this so-called class of investors actually believes that people they don't see at their splendorous soires don't exist. Hence, anyone beyond the doorways that are more expensive than at least my entire life is an interloper, an outsider, not part of "civil society".
That could explain a lot.
The plutocrats want more than our money- they want our minds and our children to be compliant. No critical questions allowed. Margaret Spellings said one of her goals was to teach the next generation about free markets.
Hence, the plutocrats funding of education "reform" propaganda. The Duncan's Race to the Top and NBC's Education Nation are tools of our plutocratic class. It's pathetic when the Exeter crowd pushes no excuses boot camp charters, online mind-numbing K-12 "school" and fraudulent testing schemes on the 99%- none of which have any empirical support- yet don't choose such for their own kids.
As was demonstrated in Chicago, the teachers' strike came after a direct assault from neoliberal democrats starving public schools for 20 years.
As was demonstrated in Chicago, the teachers' strike came after a direct assault from neoliberal democrats starving public schools for 20 years.
news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/19/anti-union-ads-in-chicago-paid-for-by-hedge-funds-billionaires
of course...FDL.
Why am I not surprised at the one-sided commentary? Chris' comments would be better received if he could manage to cite examples of wealthy Democratic supporters who like to bend Obama's ear...say, for example, Warren Buffett. Not that Warren Buffet is pumping millions of dollars into the Obama campaign, but Warren Buffett's insight and advice is aimed at benefitting Warren Buffett. But Chris would rather vilify Republicans and their supporters. As for the $50,000-a-plate dinner Romney spoke at, Chris forgot to mention the less conspicuous (a mere $40,000-a-plate) fundraiser for the President held in June and hosted by Sarah Jessica Parker. And didn't the President just attend a fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z that netted $4 million? Didn't Wall Street firms as a whole donate more money to the Obama campaign back in '08 by a wide margin? Yet none of that is worthy of Chris Hayes' attention.
The Democratic fundraisers are not attracting attention because no one at either event dismissed or disrespected 47% of the nation. It is not the money, it is the fact that those in the room readily AGREED with the statements presented. It is the fact that every policy Mitt Romney supports aims at increasing the wealth of the 1% at the expense of the other 99%. It is the fact that the demonstrated disdain for Palestinians, if said by any sitting President, would set peace back 20 years in that region and probably start an uprising. It is the fact that these statements show Mr. Romney is unfit to lead this nation.
Joseph Mc Gonigle:
"The Democratic fundraisers are not attracting attention because no one at either event dismissed or disrespected 47% of the nation."
Yet candidate Obama can talk about bitter people who cling to their guns and religion...and he's not dismissing another part of the electorate? We call that hypocrisy.
Joseph Mc Gonigle:
"It is the fact that every policy Mitt Romney supports aims at increasing the wealth of the 1% at the expense of the other 99%."
That may be your opinion, but what are your facts?
Joseph Mc Gonigle:
"It is the fact that the demonstrated disdain for Palestinians, if said by any sitting President, would set peace back 20 years in that region and probably start an uprising."
Both the Dems and Repubs would do well to get out of the Middle East. Our presence has been part of the problem for decades. But will either political party admit to a decades-long major foreign policy failure? Not on your life. And how has Obama's foreign policy in regards to the War on Terror differed from Bush's? Has Guantanamo been closed? Has the PATRIOT Act been repealed or reduced in effectiveness? How does that square with the the Dems alleged love affair with civil rights?
Joseph Mc Gonigle:
"It is the fact that these statements show Mr. Romney is unfit to lead this nation."
And Obama's overwhelming credentials that made him the most qualified candidate were what? Community organizer? Illinois state senator? U.S. senator for essentially a year? Oh, yeah, that's quite the resumé.
hm1342
The President made that statement four years ago and received ample negative coverage when he said it. He also said as part of the same statement that he would be their President too, a part left out of almost every discussion of the event. Mr. Romney 'is not concerned' about this 47%. That attitude about almost half the nation does not mix with public service.
Steps that add 30 million to the number of citizens without health insurance, 'reforming' Medicare so seniors get vouchers instead of coverage, cutting Medicaid and SNAP so taxes can be cut for the 1% and revising the tax code to increase taxes $2,000 for taxpayers under $250,000 while decreasing taxes $250,000 for the 1% are policies that force the 99% to PAY MORE while the insurance companies and the 1% GET MORE. None of the above fixes the deficit, leaving more for the 99%'s children to handle.
Your opinion about what we should do in the Middle East does not change the fact that US policy since Truman has been to work for peace there in order to protect Israel and everyone else involved. Mr. Romney cannot send anyone credible to negotiate if he feels it is a waste of time - contrary to long standing, bipartisan US policy. As for the war on terror, the President went after and destroyed the Al Qaeda leadership and the world sleeps more soundly for it. The Bush Administration chased terrorists in Iraq and found none - is Iraq better off for it? Guantamamo would have been closed if a better place could have been found for those prisoners. The President agreed with his advisors that some of those prisoners were too dangerous to release. This was your party's position, if memory serves. The Patriot Act, the jobs bill, the veteran jobs bill, infrastructure improvement, tax cuts for EVERYONE up to $250,000 of income, immigration reform all have been obstructed by Republicans in Congress. Remove the plank from your eye before taking the speck out of your neighbor's eye.
The fact still remains that the video exposes an attitude that is contrary to any vision of public service and nothing in the President's fundraisers mentioned comes even close. Mr. Romney is not concerned with public service and therefore is not qualified for office.
Love the show Chris, I rarely miss it, and it was most wrenching this morning,,
These "Elitists" literally, get away with murder, metaphorically speaking,
and who pays for it? And yet they keep whining,,,
Oh and BTW, corporatocracy may be a closer fit,,, Thank You,, :>)
Just wondering...specifically how did the Koch brothers double their wealth (32 to 64 billion dollars) during a recession?
It is good to have this show on the air....but Chris why have you too been infected by the "folks" virus.
"The folks in the room all but advise Romney...."
"this small coterie of folks, by sole virtue of their wealth, gets to impose their invaluable insights on the actual candidate. "
When did this virus take over? This "everyone is just "folks" approach.
I have heard references on MSNBC to "folks on Wall Street" "folks in Romney's campaign" etc etc. And not just MSNBC.
Obama does this a lot...trying to assume a "just folks" pose.
But you Chris?
Have you noticed that "folks" are pretty much exclusively American. You don't hear, "Folks in Tibet have been setting themselves on fire." or "The folks in Putin's inner circle are concerned that..."
We often hear about the folks at Apple, or the folks at McDonalds (that from the the NY Times) even "the folks at the Pentagon."
I don't think this is as minor as it may seem in the context of the major issues of the day.
Once upon a time, this word was primarily the province of rural people speaking about themselves. Trying to borrow that mood and frame of reference is unworthy.
Except for the hostage-like "apology" about Memorial Day...good show.
(The week after the "apology" there was a panel of wall-to-wall military. How about a panel from the War Resisters league and like-minded people for their take?)
Keep up the good work.