KPFA shows us how to do convention coverage

|
(149)

I watched and I listened as the Republicans alienated much of America and the TV announcers made fools of themselves and the big newspapers reported what happened without much perspective or criticism. But the best coverage of he GOP convention came from a local outlet: KPFA's Mitch Jeserich, Davey D Cook, and Margaret Prescod had it nailed.

We got the word from the streets, the word from inside, great analysis of the issues and the speakers, all in a lively way that made me want to keep listening. Great interviews, great commentary, great back-and-forth between Mitch and Davey D, who are very different reporters with different styles... good work, folks. 

 

 

Comments

Wolf Blitzer in particular needs to be put out to pasture.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Wolf Blitzer in particular needs to be put out to pasture.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

coverage biased enough for the SFBG was an obscure radio station that almost nobody listens to, precisely because it is so biased.

Got it.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

the KPFA coverage, Democracy Now! can be streamed after-the-fact; not that it doesn't take a strong stomach and a certain degree of masochism to look closely at Republicans.

A bit of drama ensued when the DN team attempted to ask a big Republican donor some questions and were assaulted by the man's daughter, their camera being damaged.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

Attorney General Holder announced today that torture with impunity is the American way~

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/31/glenn_greenwald_on_the_justice_depts

R.I.P. Gul Rahman

R.I.P. Manadel al-Jamadi

Posted by lp on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

be sure to read what Greenwald has to say about the differences between the Repugs and the Dems~

"GLENN GREENWALD: Well, it is true that you can find a handful of issues in which there are genuine differences, and they tend to be in the realm of social issues, things like same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, approaches to jurisprudence, the kind of Supreme Court justices one would appoint. Those are not insignificant issues, and, to the contrary, they’re quite important. But in the scheme of the policies that are actually harming the people of the United States and shaping the kind of country that we have, overwhelmingly those issues are ones that find full-scale, complete agreement between the parties. So if you’d look at the policies that take the most money, that have the most effect on the citizenry, things like the drug war, the primacy of the national security and the surveillance state to operate with total secrecy, the war on whistleblowers, the posture of endless war that we’re in, the supremacy of Wall Street and our nation’s oligarchs in shaping policy through their lobbyists and funding, you see virtually no difference between the parties.

"And for that reason, those issues aren’t even being mentioned. They’re not even being discussed as part of this election, because there’s nothing for the candidates to say about the other critically because they essentially have the same position. So, the idea, for example, that what we’re discussing now in terms of closing the books on these torture cases could ever be part of the campaign is inconceivable if the candidates being heard are only Romney and Obama, because they have exactly the same views on these issues. The only hope for all of these critical issues to be addressed is to allow some of these third-party candidates, such as Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, to be included in the debates, to give them media coverage, so at the very least the Republicans and Democrats are challenged on the positions that they hold in common."

Posted by lp on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

The conventions were already jokes, it was just that 90% of us didn't know it yet. It's all a show, many of us grew up, Tim did not.

Part of the joke was that the various true believer kept up the pretense belief.

Deep down Tim Redmond thinks that the state control of democrats is better than that of the state control of republicans.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

Agreed lp, on so many issues they are just two sides of the same devalued coin.
Agreed matlock, these circuses are jokes that have become increasingly less amusing.
State control by either of these special interest groups is a threat to all our rights and freedoms. However while the 'democrats' dissemble, the 'republicans' flat out lie, and to suggest that 'democratic' control is not at least marginally better for the majority of people indicates a case of arrested development.
At the risk of courting ridicule from both sides of the divide, we desperately need principled leaders of true faith like, for example, McCloskey and Carter.
Just my thruppence.
GO GIANTS.
PAGAN IS AN ANGEL.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 9:19 am

Pat, I like you, but I must question your assumption that 'democratic' control means a majority of folks would be marginally better off. The real unemployment rate in this country is about 22.5%. That's more than 1 in 5 people without work under a Democratic regime. And the majority of Americans are blind to to the fact that we are perilously close to living in an all-out fascist state, if we're not there already. The only reason you, and many Dems, don't realize it (sorry, perhaps you do) is that there's this 'D' attached to Obama's name, and so you surmise, wrongly I think, that this means he must be gentler, more caring and more principled in some ways than the Repugs. After all, he's a Democrat, is he not? So, if Obama signs off on something like Section 1021 of the NDAA, which gives his office unprecedented powers like the right to detain Americans indefinitely without charge, in military detention no less, you will find a way to explain that away. Well, he promised he'd never use that power, right?

This attitude is precisely why so few Dems or progressives have actively resisted his policies, which in many ways are just an expansion of Bush's program. The U.S. Constitution has been effectively shredded under the Bush-Obama regime. Rendition and indefinite detention are still in play and Guantanamo Bay remains open as ever for business. But for many Americans, whether Dems or Regugs, it's "out of sight, out of mind". If you are white and not too bad off, you think there's little to worry about, as long as another Dem gets elected, right? After all, the injustice of Obama's policies are not happening to you, but to someone else~ foreigners, people of color, immigrants. But, you know, eventually the horrors will start seeping into every pore of this bankrupt society. Already, we see torture filtering down into our jails and the brutality of our police. And you end up in a society that is less human all around. Read Hans Fallada's Every Man Dies Alone to get a taste of what it's like to live in a culture and a society that has lost its soul...because this is where we're headed, no matter who wins. It is precisely because we have so few principles left that we could even think of supporting a man without principles like Obama.

IMHO, the Dems and the Repugs should be referred by their rightful name: The Party of Wall Street/ The Party of Warmongers. No one is being helped in the least by their policies, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. The truth is, we are going down the tubes, slowly but surely. And it is through our failure to resist both parties and falling for the farce that is staged every four years to give us the illusion that we still live in a democracy. The truth is, it doesn't matter who's is in charge, the result is always the same. We get embroiled in endless wars that suck money directly out of our pockets and puts it into the hands of Wall Street and the warmongers. These are the folks who Obama really represents.

Sorry, compa...just my two cents. I'll get off my soap box now.

Posted by lp on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

So why would he need to please you? Likewise he doesn't need to appease blacks - he has them in his pocket.

It's the moderates and republican left whose votes he needs, and it shows.

Don't blame the prez; blame the people. We're a very conservative nation.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

We can choose to support third-party candidates and people with principles and integrity. We can demand leaders who will honor and defend the Constitution and its guarantees under the Bill of Rights. We send our young men and women off to die for this, so we should demand no less from our leaders~ that they respect and defend the highest law of the land. We might study the example of Latin America whose people would still be living under brutal repression if they hadn't resisted and demanded real, revolutionary change in the status quo. As the great writer and activist Arundhati Roy put it, “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

Posted by lp on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

Latin America has some of the worst governments on the planet.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

Honduras, Colombia, Mexico and Paraguay are particularly nasty because they are the closest to the US politically.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

But the people's states are hell on the people too. Cuba, Venezuela as examples.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

The government does not run death squads against dissidents in Cuba and Venezuela like happened in Central America or torture them as happened at the behest of the CIA in the Southern Cone in the 60s-80s.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina have charted a new course which seems to be working out just fine for them. Argentina repudiated its debt ten years ago and is in fine shape.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

You have got to be kidding me. Cuba has one of the worst records on Human Rights in the world. Just read this..

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-cuba

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

of the war on drugs and a vast militant guerrilla force to battle.

Columbia the drug cartels are allied with FARC.

Consumption of drugs can be laid at the feet of Americans.

FARC is a crazy one time communist operation, now they have probably forgot about politics mostly and are just about mayhem. Not really the US's fault at this point.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

No, Cuba has only the colossus to the north. Colombia is pretty messed up, FARC as well, but that is a product of US policy in the region during the 20th century. The same thing happened in Iran, overthrowing Mossadegh, installing the Shah and incubating Khomeni and politicized radical Islam.

Maybe it would have happened anyway. But then it would not be our fault.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:50 pm

Iran runs up against the USSR so I suppose you shouldn't have a problem rationalising the Shah's antics.

You folks are always such rationalisers, the USA's foreign policy sucks, so did the USSR's. This contest between to gigantic foreign policy assholes always seems to come down to "it's America's fault" which many times is true, but you try way to hard.

Cuba really has never had any real domestic subversion since the revolution, those people beat it. Castro was busy tossing people in jail to ensure that no one could complain. Castro was locking up gays and sending them to forced labour camps because the USA might invade?

Posted by matlock on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

Compare HRW's analysis of Cuba with Americas Watch analysis of Central America and Cuba ends up a paragon of human rights in comparison. In comparison.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

While those who monitored mainstream media were bombarded with predictions -- seeingly announcements -- of Argentina's imminent collapse after repudiating its IMF debt, the outcome was otherwise.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

Or last few decades.

Cuba is still a human rights abuser, and was one of the worst around in it's first decades. Murder was hardly not in Castro's bag of thuggery.

Venezuela's president makes George Bush look like a libertarian.

I enjoy the hysterics of the far right when they whine about the poor choices that are made down south, they are a bit comical with their history of backing scum bags.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

Compared to Colombia and Central America for most of the 20th century, Cuba and Venezuela are human rights leaders.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

They still suck on human rights. Trying to compare one mass murder and torturer to another is a losing operation.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 10:32 pm

US incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, most of them poor and of color, dwarfs any human rights violations by the Cubans in audacity and scale. The unchecked arbitrary actions of cops in the US puts Cuba and even Mexico to shame.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 7:03 am

legalise things based on class and race. If enough people of a certain class or race break the law, we should just do away with those laws.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 9:16 am

with regard to insider trading and bank/securities fraud.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

No, voting no longer works, it only determines how fast and sharp we'll take the right turn. We need to actively resist and deny legitimacy to this regime.

Folks should spoil their ballots by the tens of millions.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

Let's just be clear.

Voting for neither the most evil nor the lesser evil is a valid course at the federal level only -- or at the state and local levels too?

I think it is valid to ask if and how much Barack Obama will be discomfited if un-elected and just how much that "weighs" in "leverage." Is Obama simply playing a "part" in what is a more-or-less pre-programmed political sequence that we are undergoing?

Do things have to get worse before they get better? -- or do those who are "living in the real world" continue to get us to ask "how long can we keep this somewhat half-assed thing half-assedly going?"

I think that in *any* case local politics matters.

For instance, I think San Franciscans should vote against the waste of funds to research destroying our water supply.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

Often times the progressive loses at various levels of city, state, and federal bodies, meaning it doesn't work.

When it comes to direct democracy such as initiatives it doesn't work because the people are often too stupid to vote right. They pass propositions that ban petty taxes like the alcyhol tax proposed by John Avalos.

In the past when voting worked great, people would vote for Jim Crow laws, they banned spirits with a amendment to the constitution, they enacted visionary eugenics laws etc...

Voting doesn't work if you keep losing.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Of course there's always the possibility you're being "imp'ed" as I know I've been both subject to such -- and hoodwinked by it -- but I don't expect anybody will believe you shed honest tears when progressives lose.

And can you truly associate Jim Crow laws with people voting? I guess I figured Jim Crow laws couldn't be associated with Progressive policies such as referendum voting in any way; but could easily be linked to vote supression of Blacks. Let me know if I'm mistaken about that.

Unless... do you mean to refer to the recent California Prop 8 as "Jim Crow?" That one didn't lose by much and the final tally reflects the latest waypoint on a course towards popular support for gay marriage.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

When it came to Jim Crow I was thinking of Woodrow Wilson who was elected, (you know, president of the USA) and was something of a progressive. He was instrumental in putting forth Jim Crow laws.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

I don't know why you choose to feed this troll. Just saying.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive and he help implement Jim Crow laws.

Fact.

You are an idiot.

Fact.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

that opportunity to slither away from your original premise which was that ballot referenda -- and in the wider sense, voting in general -- resulted in Jim Crow laws.

Here's what you wrote:
[When it comes to direct democracy such as initiatives it doesn't work because the people are often too stupid to vote right. They pass propositions that ban petty taxes like the alcyhol tax proposed by John Avalos.

In the past when voting worked great, people would vote for Jim Crow laws, they banned spirits with a amendment to the constitution, they enacted visionary eugenics laws etc...]

Jim Crow laws originated with voter supression, which is what you seem to be feebly attempting to engage in.

But you are correct in your diversionary observations that Woodrow Wilson, was a progressive 100 years ago -- and was a racist too, furthering the practices of segregation.

Were there non-progressives of that era who also believed in segregation? You know the answer but don't have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

"Often times the progressive loses at various levels of city, state, and federal bodies, meaning it doesn't work."

Jesus you are stupid, I don't know how to follow your internal monologue of what you make up for yourself. Then there's something about non progressives believing in something or another in this latest bit. What a world of crazy you have.

Progressives think democracy is dead because they lose, simple as that, your creation of your own reality here doesn't change that but makes the case.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

Yes. That's it matty. I must be stupid. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are saying that just about *everybody* is stupid. They are all so stupid and you are quite clever, right?

"Often times (sic) the progressives loses (sic)"; therefore we should quit voting.

I got it. Thanks, matlock.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

I ain't no 'effin retard.

Obama ran as a transformational leader, he abandoned his electoral base and lurched to the right, and the base abandoned him in 2010, exactly how it happened with Clinton in 1994.

Now Obama is at real risk of losing to wingnuts because he's moving further to the right.

Romney should not win, but Obama deserves to lose.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

My view was always that Obama was much less "transformational" then most people thought. I predicted that he would adopt a centrist posture once in power. To some extent, that was obvious as all leaders move to the center out of political necessity.

But if Obama had really come across as wanting to institute massive change, he would never have been elected, since quite simply the American people don't want massive change. They want effective tinkering and competent management.

Obama managed to inspire the left to ensure they came out and supported him. But the silent moderate majority are who wins elections, and Obama's genius was that he didn't sound too scarily left-wing to put off the average Joe.

Obama has governed more or less as I expected, left of Bush but right of anything the SFBG would support. He has mastered the "just lefty enough" rhetoric, and yet knows he will be punsihed if he tries to rock the moderate boat.

Meanwhile Mitt is well to the elft of the GOP and so, realistically, you have as ideal a ticket as you could wish for either way. Be grateful for what you've got, and nobody cares if you spoil your ballot paper.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
+1

+1

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

move to the center.

It's a great theory on paper, but does not appear to apply in the real world of U.S. politics; the predominant case is that they move to the right.

The last president to have moved to the center was George H.W. Bush. Before that, who?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 7:04 am

because you are so far to the left that every president is a disappointment.

Certainly Democrat presidents will move to the right, as a matter on inevitable compromize. At least, Obama and Clinton did. Carter and JFK/LBJ maybe less so, but I wasn't around then so can't say for sure.

Also, most presidents have to work with a Congress that is not of their own party, at least in one of the chambers. So again that limits how "progressive" they can be. Even a Democrat-controlled House and Senate could not pass the public option of ObamaCare.

There just isn't the support for left-wing policies in America.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 9:34 am

The Democrats lost the House in 2010 because Obama ran for President as a center left transformational leader, was rewarded with 345 electoral votes for his trouble, and then governed like a center right down the road can kicker.

The same thing happened in 1992-4 as well, when Clinton ran as a center left candidate and governed like a DLC Democrat.

There is plenty of support for populist policies in the US about bringing Wall Street and the warmongers under control. Candidates win elections on those platforms. Yet no matter who wins, Wall Street and the warmongers come out ahead.

There is no support for a progressive agenda within the Democrat Party, even after voters vote for those populist policies over and again.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 10:55 am

Obama lost the House because of Obamacare. Even "sans" the public option, it was too left-wing for the American people, which is why the Tea Party became the fastest growing political party in American history.

The idea that the Dem's lost the House because they were not left-wing enough is ridiculous - the truth is the exact opposite.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 11:32 am

"Obamacare. Even "sans" the public option, it was too left-wing for the American people."

Goodness when you people lie, you shoot for the moon, don't you?

I've posted the link before. Anybody with any sense knows it. Maybe you might fool people who are on the periphery of awareness with such gall-bladdered mendacity.

The *public* was *overwhelmingly" -- I think when your cohort talks of Lee's election, you call it "landslide" -- *overwhelmingly* in favor of the "public option"; medicare-for-all.

What *is* it with this site that it attracts such flies?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

The people were split. The fact that millions joined the Tea Party to protest ObamaCare even without the public options shows that the people were by no means united behind ObamaCare.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 4:29 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

civil rights legislation in the 1960's so, if we followed your rule, we'd have ObamaCare but we'd still have segregation.

Joe Sixpack isn't my criterion for what is right for the country - is it yours?

The Democrats rendered that question moot by voting down the public option anyway. And if even the Dem's don't want it, and we know the GOP don't, then who is left to support it? The Greens?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

The poll I cited showed that 72% were in favor of a public option.

( http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf?tag=co... )

So, contrary to your claim, if the people's will had been followed, we would not have "ObamaCare" -- as you call it -- but a robust public option.

Where is your poll which purports to prove that "70% were opposed to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s"? Frankly, I am quite sure you are mistaken; though possibly such a claim could be made with regard to southern Democrats.

As for the larger question of "Joe-six-pack" -- by which I think you mean to refer to the American people as rabble -- I'll tell you unequivocally that I believe democracy is superior to any plan you'd propose.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

people were not "on board" with de-segregation and civil rights, at the time. That isn't to say that it was wrong to do that and, indeed, many correct political changes can be unpopular. I offered that observation only to show that there is not direct correlation between polularity and correctness. Most Americans like watching American Idol and eating Big Mac's but I don't read much into that either.

Re the public option, we know that the Dem's could not support it even though they controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress at the time. That speaks to a lack of consensus on what you claim the people wanted. And of course we know the Tea Party went from nothing to millions on a dime, based on that theme.

So, yeah, maybe most people would want free healthcare. Heck, who wouldn't want that and free everything else? But I also believe that most voters get that there can be no free lunch. And ObamaCare either means European style waiting lists and bureaucracy, or it means massively higher taxes.

Choose your poison.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:59 pm