US Politics: Left-Wing Radio and the Rhetoric of Hate (Haddigan)

US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

Liberalism, as a political philosophy, has a proud tradition in the United States. Beginning with reform efforts to alleviate the hardships of industrial workers at the turn of the 20th  century, progressive politicians and activists have attempted to pursue policies over the last century that make the "American Dream" a realistic goal for all Americans. But, at the same time as advancing the notions of tolerance and equality in the United States, liberals have also shown a remarkable intolerance for dissent from their conservative opponents. A 19-page report recently issued by the conservative Media Research Center, The Real Radio Hatemongers: Left-Wing Radio Hosts’ Track Record of Vile and Vicious Rhetoric, provides the latest evidence that some liberals are as susceptible to making personal malicious attacks as their conservative adversaries.

US Politics: Glenn Beck on Martin Luther King “A Radical Socialist Icon”
US Politics: Can Obama and the Democrats Retain Control of Congress? (Haddigan)

Shortly after radio became a nationwide medium of communication in the 1920s, liberals began to attack conservatives for using it to spread a reactionary message of fear and "hate". They have tried to curb right-wing radio hosts, from the controversial "Radio Priest" Father Coughlin in the 1930s to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity today,  through federal regulations. 

The most important of these regulations was the "Fairness Doctrine". This required that every radio station, for a renewal of its licence by the Federal Communications Commission, had to include programming time for the discussion of controversial political issues, with a presentation of both sides of the topic.

Introduced by the liberal administration of President Truman in 1949, the Doctrine was revoked in 1985 by a FCC controlled by Reagan appointees, who argued it contravened the First Amendment right to free speech. In the interim, e President Kennedy and President Johnson had used the measure to blunt conservative criticisms over the airwaves of their policies. FCC enforcement eventually led to conservative Reverend Carl McIntire, in the 1970s, becoming the only radio broadcaster to lose his licence because of violations of the Doctrine. (McIntire attempted unsuccessfully to air Radio Free America from a "pirate" ship off the coast of New Jersey in 1973.)

Democrats have called for a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Former President Bill Clinton argued on a progressive radio show in 2009, "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows."

Clinton articulated the longstanding fear of liberals that corporations, and tax-exempt foundations supported by corporations, were financing the Radical Right’s spurious attacks on progressive policies. His argument also drew on the disparity between liberal and conservative representation on national talk radio stations, with the right wing possessing a significant advantage in audience numbers. But, at the heart of liberal complaints against conservative radio hosts, from the thirties to today, is the contention that they foment discord in America with their "Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves", the title of a new book by Bill Press.

Deep in the liberal psyche is the contention that the Radical Right, the so called fright-peddlers and hatemongers of the early 1960s, created the climate for the assassination of President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The MRC report includes the contentious assertion of Mike Malloy (The Mike Malloy Show, August 26, 2009) on his sadness at the death of Ted Kennedy: “I remember feeling that way in 1963 and again in 1968, when his two brothers were murdered by the right-wing in this country.”

Liberals fear that the same fate awaits President Obama, a tragedy that Ed Schultz suggests some right-wing radio hosts would welcome: “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.”

And, apparently, conservative talk radio does not confine itself to encouraging the murder of Presidents. Other bizarre claims made by Malloy include: Limbaugh and Beck want to see repeats of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; Bill O’Reilly inspires the killing of doctors who provide abortions; and a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was killed because of the “poison” pumped out over the airwaves by conservative broadcasters. On a show last September, Malloy declared, "Glenn Beck rails against census workers, and inspires his people to go out and kill one for sport.” And not only did Beck galvanize the murderer, he welcomed the atrocity: “I will guarantee you that O’Reilly and Beck and the rest of these monsters on the neo-fascist right love this stuff. It gives them something else to talk about. It’s sport.”

Liberal radio hosts do not limit themselves to alleging that right-wing figures whip up hate. They also engage in personal attacks on conservatives, some of which contain material that, if aired by Glenn Beck, would lead to his instant dismissal by Fox News. Malloy in October 2008 argued that Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, is a “hatemonger” who “would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations.” Molloy concluded, “This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.”

But even that invective pales compared to Montel Williams almost a year ago when he urged Bachmann, “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead!  I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

As the most prominent of conservative radio broadcasters, Rush Limbaugh receives most of the vitriol aired by some liberal radio hosts. Malloy has hoped “that Rush Limbaugh will choke to death on his own throat fat”. A parody song for the Randi Rhodes Show in May included the verse, “He’s a fat conservative butthead/Sick Republican sleazeball/Fearmongering scumbag/Egotistical asswipe/Mean-spirited, hog-wallowing, fat conservative putz/With the face of ahorse’s ass/Mega dildos, Rush!” Hardly the way to build a bridge to tolerance and respect for the differing political philosophies in the United States.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh has no interest in helping foster a spirit of bi-partisanship. The liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, features a link to the "Limbaugh Watch". The site also contains extensive scrutiny (and easily accessed archives) of the misinformation presented in media appearances by Glenn Beck and other conservative broadcasters.

On the other side, the conservative Media Research Centre was founded five years ago to counter what it claimed was a liberal media bias on network news shows. Though not as easily searchable as Media Matters, the MRC website offers extensive evidence for the conservative lament that the media is controlled by liberals, a complaint that dates back to the years of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

As befits the importance of a free media to a healthy democracy, both these sites illustrate by contrast that political debate can be vigorous in the United States. Since the days of Roosevelt’s "fireside chats", however, liberals have been successful in portraying themselves as the responsible and principled political persuasion, opposed by a hatemongering and rabid right wing. Conservatives, understandably, resent their marginalization as the purveyors of extremism and react in a less than civil manner.

The truth is that, for all the instances of red-baiting in America (which continues today with the claims Obama is a socialist), there are similar occurrences of brown-baiting --- comparing conservatives to fascists --- by liberals. In fact, a credible argument can be made that McCarthyism was the result of an enraged conservative minority retaliating against attempts by liberals during World War II to smear all right-wing isolationists as fascist traitors. Until liberals realise that they are part of the reason for the current incivility in political discussion, there appears little likelihood that the nature and tone of debate will change in the United States.

Iran: Obama Rejects a Public "Red Line" on Nuclear Capability (Porter)

Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service:

President Barack Obama's refusal in a White House briefing earlier this month to announce a "red line" in regard to the Iran nuclear programme represented another in a series of rebuffs of pressure from Defence Secretary Robert Gates for a statement that the United States will not accept Tehran's existing stocks of low enriched uranium.

The Obama rebuff climaxed a months-long internal debate between Obama and Gates over the "breakout capability" issue which surfaced in the news media last April.

Iran Special: The Supreme Leader and One Voice on Nuclear Talks with US?

Gates has been arguing that Iran could turn its existing stock of low enriched uranium (LEU) into a capability to build a nuclear weapon secretly by using covert enrichment sites and undeclared sources of uranium.

That Gates argument implies that the only way to prevent Iran having enough bomb-grade uranium for nuclear weapons is to insist that Iran must give up most of its existing stock of LEU, which could be converted into enough bomb-grade uranium for one bomb.

But Obama has publicly rejected the idea that Iran's existing stock of LEU represents a breakout capability on more than one occasion. He has stated that Iran would have to make an overt move to have a "breakout capability" that would signal its intention to have a nuclear weapon.

Obama's most recent rebuff of the Gates position came in the briefing he gave to a select group of journalists Aug. 4.

Peter David of The Economist, who attended the Aug. 4 briefing, was the only journalist to note that Obama indicated to the journalists that he was not ready to lay down any public red lines "at this point". Instead, Obama said it was important to set out for the Iranians a clear set of steps that the U.S. would accept as proof that the regime was not pursuing a bomb.

Obama appeared to suggest that there are ways for Iran to demonstrate its intent not to build a nuclear bomb other than ending all enrichment and reducing its stock of low enriched uranium to a desired level.

Iran denies any intention of making nuclear weapons, but has made no secret that it wants to have enough low enriched uranium to convince potential adversaries that it has that option.

At a 2005 dinner in Tehran, Hassan Rowhani, then secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that Iran didn't need a nuclear weapon, as long as it had the "mastery of the fuel cycle" as a deterrent to external aggression.

Gates raised the issue of the Iranian ability to achieve a breakout capability in a three-page memorandum addressed to national security adviser Jim Jones in January 2010, as first reported in the New York Times Apr. 18.

In reporting the Gates memo, David E. Sanger of the New York Times wrote, "Mr. Gates's memo appears to reflect concerns in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well-prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed."

In the statement issued on the memo Apr. 18, Gates said it "identified next steps in our defense planning process where further interagency discussion and policy decisions would be needed in the months and weeks ahead."

The Sanger article appeared eight days after differences between Obama and Gates over the Iranian breakout capability issue had surfaced publicly in April....

Thus far the Obama administration has not given emphasis to the threat of U.S. attack on Iran. Instead it has sought to use the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran as leverage, even as it warns the Israelis privately not to attempt such an attack.

Read full article....

US Politics: Can Obama and the Democrats Retain Control of Congress? (Haddigan)

EA's US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes:

With latest figures suggesting that the American economy is still performing poorly and a continuing restlessness in the progressive Left over health care reform, the prospects for the Democrat Party in November look bleak.

Incumbent administrations almost always suffer badly at the mid-term polls, but President Obama is facing a particularly mammoth struggle to retain control of Congress --- the upper body of the Senate and the lower body of the House of Representatives --- in his election cycle. Faced with a resurgent conservative opposition and a general dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy and health care, the President needs an issue to recapture the enthusiasm of apathetic Democrat voters.

US Politics: Is This the Beginning — or the Beginning of the End — for Glenn Beck? (Haddigan)

Failing an astounding change in economic fortunes in the economy, it is a near-certainty that the administration will turn to blaming the Bush years for the current troubles, as well as bringing out the old Democrat bugbear of big-business funding Republican causes. In these Congressional elections, an estimated $153 million will be spent on campaigns, nearly double the $77 million spent in 2006.

Last week the Labor Department announced an unexpected rise of 500,000 in the number of jobless claims, a figurethat that prompted John Boehner, the Minority Leader in the House of Representative, to call for the firing of President Obama’s top two economic aides. This week it was revealed that new home purchases in June were at their lowest level since collection of the data began in 1963. With weak consumer confidence and nervous investors, the state of the economy has led to warnings that the United States may suffer a double-dip recession: Mark Zandi, the economist who helped the administration determine the extent of its stimulus package, recently raised his evaluation of the chances of a renewed recession from 20% to 33%. The long-term odds may still be in President Obama’s favour, but the reality is that he will not be able to point to the success of his economic spending package come November.

Nor will President Obama be able to promote the first two years of his Presidency as a victory for health care reform without alienating the left wing of his party. Despite the historic achievement of passing an act that revolutionises the provision of patient care, progressives are infuriated at the omission of a public option, and some Democrats are rebelling against the administration’s portrayal of the Affordable Care And Patient Protection Act as the best result that could be achieved.

Recently, 128 Democrats co-sponsored a bill to amend the health care law to include a public option (government-run insurance provision) from 2014. Initially confident that the public would hail the economic benefits of reform, including the reduction of the Federal deficit, health care advocacy groups who helped President Obama garner enough votes to pass the act are now stressing that it can be improved with the inclusion of a public option. The bill is highly unlikely to pass, but it sends a clear message to the administration that come January, if the Democrats manage to retain control of Congress, the public option will be back on the agenda.

Two weeks ago Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, spoke to The Hill, a Washington-based website covering Congressional politics: the “lack of appreciation or recognition for what Obama has accomplished has left Gibbs and others in furious disbelief". Top analyst Larry Berman said Gibbs' outburst “reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval.”

Meanwhile, the President was unveiling another tactic in the election strategy. At the end of July, he urged passage of the DISCLOSE Act for campaign finance reform. On 9 August, at a Texas fundraising dinner for the Democratic National Committee, he went further, as he claimed that failure to pass the Act was allowing groups like Americans for Prosperity to run attack ads against Democrat candidates, with no indication of who was funding the assault. He warned that “harmless-sounding” organizations like the AFP were able to influence the forthcoming elections because of Republican obstructionism in Congress, asserting, “We’ve got to make sure that we don't have a corporate takeover of our democracy.” The President returned to the theme last Saturday in his Weekly Address, titled unsubtly, "No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy."

All three of these speeches attacked the pernicious influence of special interest groups on elections, indicating President Obama is going to use campaign reform as an important issue in the run-up to November. Two of the statements refer to Theodore Roosevelt, the "grandaddy" of progressive politics, and his warning 100 years ago of corporations as “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs”. Obama called for a bi-partisan solution in Congress, i.e., the DISCLOSE Act, and a return to “a democracy that works for ordinary Americans --- a government of, by, and for the people”.

There is a long way, in political terms, before the elections, but it is already apparent that it would be suicide for Democrats to stand solely on their record on the economy and health care reform . To retain control of Congress, President Obama will need to give voters a reason to distinguish between the politics he represents and that of the Republicans/Tea Party. He will draw on the residual contempt among Democrats for all that President Bush stood for and the campaign finance issue. Obama’s "politics of hope" of 2008 have become the "politics of fear".

Still, there are reasons for Democrats to be optimistic they can perform better in the elections than current poll indicate: the tendency of grassroots conservative movements like the Tea Party to implode, the ability of President Obama to convince voters to turn out for him, a significant advantage in cash, and the possibility that the unknown variable of state and local concerns may help Democrat candidates.

To make a foolhardy prediction, as the race just begins in earnest, I believe that the Democrats --- in what looksto be an ill-mannered campaign --- will surprise many in November and narrowly retain both the House and the Senate. The present administration, and its supporters, are not yet "tired" enough of their policies to relinquish control of Congress so easily.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: What is Washington's Strategy on Settlements and Talks?

On Monday, reminded about the statement by Palestinian representatives that they would walk away if the settlement freeze was not extended in the West Bank, U.S. State Department Spokesman P. J. Crowley said:

Well, first of all, we look forward to the first meeting next week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, and Secretary Clinton here on September 2^nd as well as the individual meetings and dinner that President Obama will host at the White House on September 1^st. We look forward to getting into the direct negotiation and then we believe that once that negotiation starts, it’ll be incumbent upon both the Israelis and Palestinians to avoid steps that can complicate that negotiation.

Middle East Inside Line: Hezbollah’s “Evidence” on Hariri Assassination; A Nuclear Reactor in Lebanon?
Palestine-Israel Analysis: Ramallah’s “One Month Trial” and Netanyahu’s “Security Card”

Then, asked whether Washington was worried that the Israelis had not committed to extend that moratorium, Crowley implicitly revealed the Obama Administration's expectations:

No. As we’ve been saying throughout this process, our focus has been to get the parties into direct negotiations and once in the direct negotiations, then these very issues will be tabled and resolved.

On Tuesday, Crowley was asked whether the US had reached an understanding with Israelis that there would be no announcement that the settlement freeze would continue but some construction, possibly in large settlement blocks, would continue. Crowley did not deny but reiterated Washington's classic statement: "Well, we look forward to the meetings next week."

In contrast, a senior administration official briefing reporters in Jerusalem said that the US position had not changed,and that Washington “doesn’t accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. The official also said there were no “clandestine” understandings with either side.

On Wednesday, two US officials --- Daniel Shapiro, a top National Security Council staffer handling Israel and neighbouring countries, and David Hale, deputy to special Mideast envoy George Mitchell --- are going to the region to talk separatelywith Palestinians and Israelis.

Washington's message is clear to both sides: No provocative actions until 2 September and the start of the directly. The second strategy is to urge the Israeli government for a partial, if not a full, settlement freeze in the West Bank. Still, the question remains: beyond the refugee and status of East Jerusalem issues, how is the US going to persuade Ramallah to accept a peace plan likely to be linked to Israel's "sensitive" security concerns, even if it is based on 1967-War borders(even not mentioning the refugee and the status of East Jerusalem problems)?

UPDATED US Politics: Obama is a Muslim (This Time They're Serious)

UPDATE 22 August: Reverend Franklin Graham, the son of legendary preacher Billy Graham and a prominent evangelist in his own right, stokes the flames in an interview on CNN: "I think the President's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name....

"Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said....The Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs."

Juan Cole takes apart Graham's claim: "Unlike in Judaism, one is not born a Muslim. Rather, children of Muslim parents who embrace Islam typically recite the confession of faith around puberty and undertake to fulfill the obligations of Islamic law at that time."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzKs2b34rjQ[/youtube]

US Politics & Religion: A Way Forward on and beyond the Islamic Cultural Centre (Ezell)

UPDATE 0945 GMT: Chris McGreal of The Guardian profiles Pam Geller, whose blog Atlas Shrugs has been instrumental in promoting the notion of "The Islamization of America" and in converting the proposed Islamic Cultural Center in New York City into a crisis.

UPDATE 0900 GMT: And the Serious Parodies Keep Coming. James Taranto, has been given cover for years by The Wall Street Journal to re-work news into a cudgel against "liberals" --- one of his latest ventures is to endorse the "reporting" of The New York Post, "The developers of the Ground Zero mosque are refusing to flat out reject cash for the project from Holocaust-denying Iranian nuke nut Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".

So rather than consider how we have gotten to the point where CNN would post the large headline at the bottom of the TV screen, "W.H. [White House]: PRES. OBAMA ISN'T MUSLIM", Taranto sees Liberal Conspiracy: "The agenda behind these polls [showing 18% of Americans believe the President is a secret Muslim], and the liberal media's reporting on them, is to portray critics of President Obama as kooks and idiots."

Ever since November 2008, less than three weeks after the birth of EA, we have tracked --- tongue firmly in cheek --- the shocking story that Barack Obama is in fact a Muslim. We first brought you the truth courtesy of our favourite on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia. We were there when Obama outed himself (at least for our fellow "journalists"), "The Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." We were there for the Obama bow-down to the Saudi king.

We were even there for the revelation --- which, thanks to the liberals who dominate the US media, never appeared --- that Obama was actually Osama.

However, amidst the current whipped-up controversy over the Islamic Cultural Center in New York City, perhaps it's time to suggest that this is not a tongue-in-cheek matter. The Washington Times, the second-largest newspaper in the US capital, allowed its staff member Jeffrey Kuhner free rein in Friday's edition. And they did so with the doctored photograph posted above:

President Obama has revealed his true nature. After 20 months in the Oval Office, he still remained a largely unknown figure. A picture is coming into focus now, and it should trouble all Americans. It is widely known that Mr. Obama is a post-national progressive. Yet he is also a cultural Muslim who is promoting an anti-American, pro-Islamic agenda. This is the real meaning of his warm - and completely needless - embrace of the Ground Zero Mosque.

At an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan at the White House, Mr. Obama told Muslim-Americans that he supports the building of an Islamic community center and mosque just two blocks away from where the Twin Towers were destroyed and nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. He later tried to back away from those comments. Mr. Obama said he was defending the right of religious freedom but not the "wisdom" of erecting the mosque.

Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has been clear: In his view, the Ground Zero Mosque should be built. There was no good practical reason even to comment on the issue. He had been silent for weeks as the controversy gathered steam. The overwhelming majority of the American people oppose the mosque - especially the families of the Sept. 11 victims. Politically, it is a loser - for him and his party. Yet he could not keep his mouth shut. Why?

Answer: For Mr. Obama, defending Islam has been a key priority of his presidency. In his famous speech in Cairo, Mr. Obama apologized to the Muslim world for the alleged "sins" and "mistakes" of America - even though no country has done more to liberate Islamic peoples than the United States, including campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. His aim was to engage the Islamic world on its terms and norms rather than defend America's values and national interests.

Mr. Obama openly bragged about his "Muslim background" and that his family had "followers of Islam." He spoke of his youth in Indonesia, his study of the Koran and the call to Islamic prayer. In short, he discovered his inner Muslim in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the Arab street. The message was: I understand you, and I will usher in a new era of Islamic-American relations.

This Mr. Obama has done with a vengeance. He is the most Muslim-friendly president in the nation's history. He wants the detention center at Guantanamo Bay closed. He demands that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, be tried in civilian court - with the full legal and constitutional protections given to U.S. citizens - several blocks from the World Trade Center site. He has ordered that the words "Muslim extremist," "Islamic terrorist" and "jihad" be cleansed from national security documents. He is openly anti-Israel. And he is prematurely withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Israeli military and intelligence officials concede that the administration - through diplomatic back channels - has told Jerusalem that Washington will not bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The Jews are on their own in confronting the Holocaust-denying dictator President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Obama's tepid sanctions have failed to curb Iran's relentless march toward acquiring the nuclear bomb. This weekend, the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr will begin fueling with enriched uranium. Thus, theocratic Iran is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. It is only a matter of time before radical Islam also has the bomb.

Mr. Obama has done everything possible to appease the Muslim world - including, now, backing the Ground Zero Mosque....

Read rest of article....