Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Peace Through Education | Main | Powering America's Future »

Michael Winship - Progressives: Don't Mourn, Organize

(Photo by Robin Holland)

Below is an article by JOURNAL senior writer Michael Winship. We welcome your comments below.

"Progressives: Don't Mourn, Organize"
By Michael Winship

Tragic events continuing out of Haiti make all the bad news for progressives this week wither in comparison. Nonetheless, over these last few days, for liberals in particular, there has been no joy in Mudville - aka American politics.

Just for starters: Thursday's Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate dollars dominating campaign advertising; the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, ending the Democrats so-called supermajority of 60 votes; and the subsequent collapse of health care reform as Democratic members of Congress scurried for the fire exits.

For a moment at least President Obama must have felt like he was in one of those animated cartoons where the hero tries to rally his troops shouting, "What are we, men or mice?" and the response is a chorus of rodent-like squeaks.

Add to this John Edwards confessing - finally - to paternity, and the withdrawal of Erroll Southers' name as Obama's choice to run the Transportation Security Administration after weeks of harassment by conservative Senator Jim DeMint (and the revelation that Southers had dissembled about incidents 20 years ago when he accessed a Federal database to investigate his estranged wife's new boyfriend). Yikes.

Then, just to ice this cookie full of arsenic, comes news of the demise of the progressive radio network Air America. It was a misbegotten enterprise from the onset, intentions noble but its finances always in a state of jangling uncertainty (in the interest of full disclosure, I made regular appearances for a short while on their morning show, UNFILTERED, hosted by Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and Rachel Maddow - Rachel being the best and smartest on-air personage to have emerged from the entire Air America enterprise).

Why progressive talk radio has been unable to counter the right-wing, talk radio juggernaut seems no great mystery. The nuance and diffuse nature of much liberal debate is unlike the bombast and accusation that sells beverages and shock absorbers. "Yes, but on the other hand" works great for NPR, God bless them, but not in the loud and confrontational world of commercial talk radio, where gladiatorial skills are more valued than dialectical ones.
More important, Air America was never able to attract the big corporate dollars, its audience too small and, one presumes, because its politics did not gibe with the free market agenda of many large sponsors and their associates, the ones with the deepest pockets.

Just look, for example, at the wallet of the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce, which describes itself as "the world's largest business federation representing 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions." The Chamber bragged about the cash they poured into TV ads supporting Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race - more than half a million dollars' worth by last count - and said his victory "could pay immediate dividends by throwing into question the future of health care reform legislation pending in Congress." Check and double check.

It's the opening salvo in their campaign to block just about any kind of reform by backing pro-business candidates in this fall's midterm elections - in all, the Chamber plans to spend a whopping $100 million dollars. Not that they have to buy any more members of Congress - as we've seen this past year, and especially this week, the Democrats and Republicans they've already helped pay for are perfectly capable of bringing the House and Senate to a compete standstill - witness health care, the cap-and-trade climate bill and the disinclination to truly step up to the plate on financial reform. All thanks in part to the lobbying efforts and campaign cash of big business, which, with this week's Supreme Court decision, will be all the more able to deluge the airwaves and Internet with an unending barrage of ads in favor or against the candidates and issues of their choice..

But this is no time to run and hide. As the historian Simon Schama wrote in the January 19 edition of the FINANCIAL TIMES, the President "may actually need to respond to the unrelenting pressure from zombie conservatism, ravenously flesh-eating and never quite dead, not by turning on more consensual charm, but by taking the gloves off. With his bank levy - 'We want our money back,' he said - Mr Obama has belatedly begun to fight. Whether he can trade enough punches with the right before the November mid-term elections remains to be seen, but my hunch is that President Composure is up for a brawl."

To do so, he will have to speak out forcefully and counter the bulldozing effect of megabucks with solid community support. A report last week by David Corn on the MOTHER JONES Web site was not encouraging, suggesting that the volunteer army of more than 13 million activists and donors that sparkplugged Obama's presidential campaign has been too often ignored or misused by the White House.

An investigation commissioned by the crosspartisan group blog TechPresident.com found that as far as advancing a progressive agenda goes, the effort that arose from the Obama campaign, Organizing for America (OFA), "focused more on supporting and thanking allied Members than pressuring resistant Democrats or Republicans." In other words, too many e-mail offers of OFA tee-shirts and wool hats and not enough boots on the ground canvassing and lobbying.

This is no time to go wobbly, as Margaret Thatcher famously told George Bush the First. But given the events of this week, perhaps even more appropriate are the pre-firing squad words of that most famous Wobbly, radical and labor activist Joe Hill: Don't mourn, organize.


Please note that the views and opinions expressed by Michael Winship are not necessarily the views and opinions held by Bill Moyers or BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1906

Comments

Re; My previous blog on the online petition. All the politicians that voted against Obama's health care reforms should be listed and a follow up on whether they have switched or not. If they haven't switched obviously they're not willing to give up a good thing. But they don't want you to have it.

Some TV station, documentary program, should take 2 families that have faced medical bankrupcy, a worse case and not so serious one looking at what coverages they would have required to avoid bankruptcy and bills after.
Then look at what percentage of Americans have that much coverage.

Somebody should start an online petition to have the public sign on to have all the politicians that voted against Obama's health care reforms give up their subsidized Canadian style health care, so they can enjoy the benefits they so love.

PUT YOUR MONEY EHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!

Wouldn't hurt to have some well known personalities endorse this.

Pres. Professor morfs into King Retort in honor of Mardi Gras.

President Ill. talks the talk, but he is having trouble finding the walk.

To dance with who brung ya may work for golfers, but sticking with the Georgia Gang as Jimmy did, or the Campaign Runners from Ill. as President Obama is doing may be like using fishing worms for Tarpon--it may work--but not likely.

There are many talented, qualified people in our country that can do a better job than Obama's choices have----all they seem to do is go back on the campaign trail---
WHICH ain't the right WALK!

Geithner had no knowledge of AIG cause he stuck his in the sand & he is the best President Obama can find?! Gemmme a break!!!

Frustratedly,

Billy Bob Florida & Obama said my vote should not count! Grrrrrrrr!

"Gays" discriminate.

Remember how the "Rachael" character from "Sex and The City" was "rejected"...

It's a GAME, now, most of the time to be too "special" to help clean up a river of dead fish...go "lobby" that whoever has to do it does NOT get paid

and/or

if you HAVE to pay them, figure out the fastest way to steal the $$$ back from them

Anna D, do you know if the Maddow-Olbermann clip is on youtube? If it is, I can’t find it. I’ll look some more.

I’ve read a lot of your posts, so I know you’re a good person. Don’t worry about it, I have a hair-trigger for certain topics.

Take care.


Posted by: David F.

I am 80% sure that it was the first time Olbermann had Rachel on his show as a WAR commentator...so if you know the date when her show started, go back a couple of months from that date to the archived TRANSCRIPTS of when she was Olbermann's guest..(yes, you'll have to READ it :-))

Olbermann, btw, was visible speechless at Rachel's snark - he KNEW what a gaff it was...

Everyone needs to KNOW who the neocons ARE because they ARE the ONLY GAME in town...and the only "facts" that they trickle out for red meat for the "rebellious" are facts that CAN NOT BE PROVEN.

And the GAMES that they play

with the MOST PERIFDY

is with LAWS. LAWS are a JOKE to them...made to be broken (if they haven't writ in a loophole yet to get around them...)

Okay, new INTERNET nanny threat :-)

Someone made a comment about a "gay" person on his FACEBOOK page and got fired for it...

Now THAT's "specialness" that NO ORGANIZED GROUP deserves based on SEXUAL preferences...

I believe that Rachel and I have the RIGHT to evolve a GOVERNMENT that protects the INDIVIDUAL against FORCE and FRAUD.

Nannyism is NOT a FAIR FORCE! My generation was taught "...sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me...".

Plus nannyism does NOT work as a FORCE against liars, thieves and murderers. But THEY (psychos, sociopaths and narcissists) certainly are working the "social communications" of STUPID NANNYISM (throwing pearls to swine)

to get the people with the "nuts" (poker parlance) out of the game.

Nannyism works against the common GOOD.

The NEOCONS not only STOLE the fruits of past, present, and future labor

but they also stole the "JOBS" - not because they wanted to do the work, but to pocket the mooney for NOT doing the GOOD work (life maintenance) that those jobs were about!

Timmy and the FRB and bank CEOs - they DO NOT HAVE TO EVEN PROVE WHY WHAT THEY ARE SELLING IS REAL - THAT THEY HAD TO STEAL FROM PEOPLE TO "SAVE" PEOPLE.

How is that kind of shenanigans NOT the kind of crazy that IS INCOMPETANCE INCARNATE?


Anna D, do you know if the Maddow-Olbermann clip is on youtube? If it is, I can’t find it. I’ll look some more.

I’ve read a lot of your posts, so I know you’re a good person. Don’t worry about it, I have a hair-trigger for certain topics.

Take care.

David F, wrote, in part, "Anna D, first we were talking about how you claim that Maddow’s world views were inline with a neocon agenda, and then, out from left-field, you wrote this nonsense:"

Yes, her world view is in line with a neocon agenda because there IS no other "agenda" on the table so any "rebelling" against said agenda is still all about the agenda and the facts they feed her.

There can be no truce when you are playing the peurile game of kill the messenger.

I made some "snarky" comments ABOUT the "nonsense". There is probably only an audience of two people, at most, :-) who are reading along here. And both of them are probably PAID censors who are protecting "specialness".

(Take note, Justices. I HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SPEECH. Thanks a pantload...)

Threatened with being microwaved,

censored from any comment about "gay",

I believe I made the point about how there IS a war already targeting GOOD.

I'm a GOOD person, David F.

You wouldn't be so hysterical about discrediting me or supporting microwaving me if I were "gay", or "political" or "greedy" or "cheap" or a one time coke user - would you? You are hysterical about "getting" me out of the game because I HOLD THE "GOOD" NUTS...

C'mon - what FUN would there be in this life if the GOOD don't get in the WAR game...

I'm being FAIR - I supplied the 4 criteria I am following regarding a JUST WAR. Go wiki it - "JUST WAR".

YOU have yet to provide what YOUR game rules are besides:

More misery for others =
More money for ME ME ME

Anna D, first we were talking about how you claim that Maddow’s world views were inline with a neocon agenda, and then, out from left-field, you wrote this nonsense:

And her other world view is a hyper-sensitivity to everything "gay" and how everyone who is not "gay" is supposed to "feel" about "gay".

Being young and impressionable when NYC was one big bath house (pre-HIV)and the stats about "gay" were that they, on AVERAGE, had a thousand different partners a year, I STILL did not "feel" anything other than - "...okay, not going there...".

Now I "feel" that it should be considered that I, too, start a movement for specialness - protecting MY personal preference of doing it while hanging upside down from a chandelier - shoot - why can't EVERYONE get in on the act?

I'm sure there are other people in the "closet" who do the chandelier thingy, also, right? Let's get some organizational POWER going...

But, I also happen to "love" non-chandelier people...so when you have to get dead fish off of the Colorado River banks, do I need to know about the "gay" or the "chandalier"...?

No, right?

Unless, of course, the "gay" take off to march around city hall

As for me amusing myself at your expense, I ap… I apol… Ahem. I apologize. Truce?

"Don’t mourn, organize."
And who are we to organize for? A president who changes his policies under the slightest of pressure from his enemies? A Democratic party who doesn't know it is in the majority in both Senate and Congress and has the Presidency as well? (58 votes in the Senate is not enough?)
Things will have to get much much worse in the U.S> for the political tide to turn. It will. But not soon.

Repeat:

David F wrote, in part, "I’m not sure when or what Maddow had said about Poland and Palau, but I can’t see her being insensitive. Maybe with Bush and his admin, but not Poland or Palau. And whatever she did say, I’ll bet it was based on facts. She always tries to state them and when she does make a mistake, she'll tells us. This, right there, disqualifies her from being a neocon."

Ask Olbermann for the clip - she was a guest on his show to diss the "coalition of the willing" in the Iraq War. I did not say she was insesitive. I said that her WORLD VIEW is shaped by the "facts" of the neocon agenda - which is TRUE whether you are a neocon or not!

David F - You've discredited yourself, not me, with your "conversation".

Just because you don't have any "dignity" boundries does not mean that you can ignore the boundries that have been established by CIVILIZED people - gay, straight and chandelier-swinging.

And worse than that, if it can get worse, is that you think that INSULT and ASSULT is "politics" and that "politics" is what "government" is.

AM Gomez 1-25 4:46pm Do you think the following is not ready for snl? How about jay?

"Guess you have heard President Chameleon has discovered Mainstreet and our color is JOBS!"

"How long does it take a Harvard Professor to discover unemployment is a concern for voters? Apparently 1 yr." (laugh track)

"Is it true, demographically, that the highest percent of unemployed is black, AND 95%+ blacks think President African-American is doing a good job? Also, the Tea Partiers that are unhappy with President Obama are racisist--according to AQl, Jesse, & Wright?"

Respectfully,

Anonymity

Anna D, yes, I do need to see that clip, because I’ve never gotten the impression that Maddow’s world views were inline with a neocon agenda, not in the slightest and I’m hypersensitive about that. Was this clip recorded recently or a few years ago?

As for her pushing her gayness onto us, that doesn’t bother me because I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body anyways (I know, that’s old one). I thought the links that I posted earlier were important because they showed how sleazy C Street is and will continue to be, not because gays were the target. Anyways, I guess it’s all about our personal thresholds. Her rare gay oriented reports seemed to have pushed you passed yours; mine would be if she started showing two guys kissing, or even worst (As Maddow would put it, “yuck”). Or, maybe it’s not her gay reports at all. Maybe it could be that your latent homosexual tendencies are beginning to surface. Does Maddow sometimes look dashing to you? Do you know that if you keep suppressing these feelings you’ll start voting Republican, screaming “Drill, baby, drill,” and having sex while hanging upside-down from a chandelier?

Besides being Liberal, the characteristic that impresses me the most about Maddow is her ability to quickly recall facts (facts facts, not Fox facts). She’s like a human computer with a 1 Tb flash-drive.

David F wrote, in part, "I’m not sure when or what Maddow had said about Poland and Palau, but I can’t see her being insensitive. Maybe with Bush and his admin, but not Poland or Palau. And whatever she did say, I’ll bet it was based on facts. She always tries to state them and when she does make a mistake, she'll tells us. This, right there, disqualifies her from being a neocon."

Ask Olbermann for the clip - she was a guest on his show to diss the "coalition of the willing" in the Iraq War. I did not say she was insesitive. I said that her WORLD VIEW is shaped by the "facts" of the neocon agenda - which is TRUE whether you are a neocon or not!

And her other world view is a hyper-sensitivity to everything "gay" and how everyone who is not "gay" is supposed to "feel" about "gay".

Being young and impressionable when NYC was one big bath house (pre-HIV)and the stats about "gay" were that they, on AVERAGE, had a thousand different partners a year, I STILL did not "feel" anything other than - "...okay, not going there...".

Now I "feel" that it should be considered that I, too, start a movement for specialness - protecting MY personal preference of doing it while hanging upside down from a chandelier - shoot - why can't EVERYONE get in on the act?

I'm sure there are other people in the "closet" who do the chandelier thingy, also, right? Let's get some organizational POWER going...

But, I also happen to "love" non-chandelier people...so when you have to get dead fish off of the Colorado River banks, do I need to know about the "gay" or the "chandalier"...?

No, right?

Unless, of course, the "gay" take off to march around city hall

(where city hall-ers ALSO have their own excuses for being too special to PAY for the labor of cleaning up dead fish, much less do it themselves)

to go lobbying for special privilege instead of doing something "volunteer"...

Now I'm starting to "feel" something...and its not a "sexual" felling :-)

Even if you are NOT a neocon, you have been tatooed by a neocon.

Via the MEDIA

where there has been NO CHANGE in who does the revelation of "facts" and WHY that "fact" and not this fact is revealed in an "anti" debate is revealing.

Little "d" topic...?

Definitely "WAR"...

I'm assuming that Rachel never knew how long ago the Just War doctrine was writ down, did she?, before her and Keithy-poo

(who CAN shred anyone's motives and political-ness at the drop of a hat)

blathered IN A SNARKY WAY about which countries were IN the "coalition of the willing"...

...it WAS a "diss Iraq War from the neocon-provided channeling cloud - AKA "the NEWS media"...

How can we make the hell on earth last long enough for me to reach "retirement"...?

I will put this "fictional short story" in your Blog
San Francisco, Dies Lunae, XXV Januarius, MMX
Dear Mr. Moyers,
I hope you are well. I’m listening to Mozart and thinking about Architect Rove. This short story that I’m about to begin has been copied almost verbatim from “The Adventure of The Final Problem” written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The place has been changed from London to Washington DC, and the characters have been replaced as follows: Watson is Mr. Moyers, Professor Moriarty is Karl Rove, Professor Moriarty’s accomplices are “Bush/Cheney’ Mafia, and I’m Holmes…Sherlock Holmes! The time: at present.
I tell you Mr. Moyers, in all seriousness, that if I could beat that man, if I could free society of him, I should feel that my own life had reached its summit, and I should be prepared to turn to some more placid line in life. I should concentrate my attention upon facing my own reality. But I cannot rest. Mr. Moyers, I cannot sit quiet in my chair, knowing that such a man as Architect Rove is walking the streets of Washington DC unchallenged.
Allow me, my dear Mr. Moyers, to enter the mind of my antagonist, Architect Rove: A most brilliant career before him. But the man has innate tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A painful and traumatic childhood, but instead of confronting his pain and fears he turned to anger and revenge, his anger and thirst for revenge toward the world increased and rendered him infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers.
As you are aware, Mr. Moyers, there is no one who knows the higher criminal world of Washington DC so well as I do. For years past I have continually been conscious of some power behind the malefactor, some deep organizing power which forever stands in the way of the law, and throws its shield over the wrong-doer. Again and again in cases of the most varying sorts – murders, torture, treason, robberies, illegal wars, etc, etc, etc, -- I have felt the presence of this force, and I have deduced its action in many of those undiscovered crimes in which I have not been personally consulted. For years I have endeavored to break through the veil which shrouded it, and at last the time came when l seized my thread and followed it, until it led me, after a thousand cunning windings, to Architect Rove.
He is the Napoleon of crime, Mr. Moyers He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in that city. He is a genius, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans. But his agents all first class lawyers and corrupt politicians are numerous and splendidly organized. Is there a crime to be done, a paper to be abstracted, we will say, a house to be rifled, a man to be removed -- the word is passed to the architect, the matter is organized and carried out. The agent or lawyer may be caught. In that case money is found for his bail, but the central power which uses the agent is never caught -- never so much as suspected. This was the organization which I deduced, Mr. Moyers, and which I devoted my whole energy to exposing and breaking up.


But the architect was fenced round with safeguards so cunningly devised that, do what I would, it seemed impossible to get evidence which would convict in a court of law. I’m forced to confess that I have at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill. I have woven my net round him until now it is all ready to close. In three days -- that is to say, on Thursday next -- matters will be ripe, and the architect, with all the principal members of his gang, will be in the hands of the police. Then will come the greatest criminal trial of the century, the clearing up of over forty mysteries, and the rope for all of them; but if we move at all prematurely, you understand, they may slip out of our hands even at the last moment.
Now, if I could have done this without the knowledge of Architect Rove, all would have been well. But he was too wily for that. He saw every step which I took to draw my toils round him. Again and again he strove to break away, but I as often headed him off. I tell you, my dear Mr. Moyers, that if a detailed account of that silent contest could be written, it would take its place as the most brilliant bit of thrust-and-parry work in the history of detection. Never have I risen to such a height, and never have I been so hard pressed by an opponent. He cut deep, and yet I just undercut him. This morning the last steps were taken, and three days only were wanted to complete the business. I was sitting in my room thinking the matter over when the door opened and Architect Rove stood before me.
" 'You have less frontal development than I should have expected,' said he at last. 'It is a dangerous habit to finger loaded firearms in the pocket of one's dressing-gown.'
"The fact is that upon his entrance I had instantly recognized the extreme personal danger in which I lay. The only conceivable escape for him lay in silencing my tongue. In an instant I had slipped the revolver from the drawer into my pocket and was covering him through the cloth. At his remark I drew the weapon out and laid it cocked upon the table. He still smiled and blinked, but there was something about his eyes which made me feel very glad that I had it there.
" 'You evidently don't know me,' said he.
" 'On the contrary,' I answered, 'I think it is fairly evident that I do. Pray take a chair. I can spare you five minutes if you have anything to say.'
" 'All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,' said he.
" 'Then possibly my answer has crossed yours,' I replied.
" 'You stand fast?'
" 'Absolutely. '
"He clapped his hand into his pocket, and I raised the pistol from the table. But he merely drew out a memorandum-book in which he had scribbled some dates.
" 'You crossed my path before,' said he. 'You wrote to me and recommended III books for me to read “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” by Nietzsche, “…If the War Goes On” by Hesse, and Goethe’s Faust [I forgot to recommend him The Anti-Christ by Nietzsche] ; by the middle of February I was seriously inconvenienced by you; at the end of March I was absolutely hampered in my plans to publish my Memoirs; and now, at the close of April, I find myself placed in such a position through your continual persecution that I am in positive danger of losing my liberty. The situation is becoming an impossible one.'
" 'Have you any suggestion to make?' I asked.
" 'You must drop it, Mr. Holmes,' said he, swaying his face about. 'You really must, you know.'
" 'After Thursday,' said I.
" 'Tut, tut!' said he. 'I am quite sure that a man of your intelligence will see that there can be but one outcome to this affair. It is necessary that you should withdraw. You have worked things in such a fashion that we have only one resource left. It has been an intellectual treat to me to see the way in which you have grappled with this affair, and I say, unaffectedly, that it would be a grief to me to be forced to take any extreme measure. You smile, sir, but I assure you that it really would.
" 'Danger is part of my trade,' I remarked.
" 'This is not danger,' said he. 'It is inevitable destruction. You stand in the way not merely of an individual but of a mighty organization, the full extent of which you, with all your cleverness, have been unable to realize. You must stand clear, Mr. Holmes, or be trodden under foot.'
" 'I am afraid,' said I, rising, 'that in the pleasure of this conversation I am neglecting business of importance which awaits me elsewhere.'
"He rose also and looked at me in silence, shaking his head sadly.
" 'Well, well,' said he at last. 'It seems a pity, but I have done what I could. I know every move of your game. You can do nothing before Thursday. It has been a duel between you and me, Mr. Holmes. You hope to place me in the dock. I tell you that I will never stand in the dock. You hope to beat me. I tell you that you will never beat me. If you are clever enough to bring destruction upon me, rest assured that I shall do as much to you.'
" 'You have paid me several compliments, Architect Rove,' said I. 'Let me pay you one in return when I say that if I were assured of the former eventuality I would, in the interests of the public, cheerfully accept the latter.'
" 'I can promise you the one, but not the other,' he snarled, and so turned his rounded back upon me and went peering and blinking out of the room.
"That was my singular interview with Architect Rove. I confess that it left an unpleasant effect upon my mind. His soft, precise fashion of speech leaves a conviction of sincerity which a mere bully could not produce. Of course, you will say: 'Why not take police precautions against him?' The reason is that I am well convinced that it is from his agents the blow would fall. I have the best of proofs that it would be so."
"You have already been assaulted?"
"My dear Mr. Moyers, Architect Rove is not a man who lets the grass grow under his feet. You will not wonder, Mr. Moyers, that my first act on entering your Blog when I asked Why? Why? was to disclosed my name and address as part of my plan, so Architect Rove could be charged with yet another crime…
I know why you never responded any of my letters, you might find me a dangerous guest. I have my plans laid, and all will be well. Matters have gone so far now that they can move without my help as far as the arrest goes, though my presence is necessary for a conviction. It is obvious, therefore, that I cannot do better than to concentrate in my own life for the few days which remain before the police are at liberty to act. It would be a great pleasure to me, therefore, if you could, after the arrest of my antagonist and the rest of that Mafia to please drop a note to me in the mail."
These are your instructions, and I beg, my dear Mr. Moyers, that you will obey them to the letter, for you are now playing a double-handed game with me against the cleverest rogue and the most powerful syndicate of criminals in America. Now listen! You will disclosed ALL my letters to the NYT and to The Nation under my pen name, these letters will not be published if the arrests are indeed to happen…But if things don’t go as planned, then, my dear Mr. Moyers, publish my letters (please edit them, make them nice without grammatical errors)I will indeed need a good lawyer and all my connections from my country: My uncle, the General (Ret.) with the impeccable reputation, my ex-boss the respected lawyer from Harvard, my friend’s brother in law who is a famous journalist and… my mother.
Architect Rove is lost if he returns to Washington. If I read his character right he will devote his whole energies to revenging himself upon me. I think that I may go so far as to say, Mr. Moyers, that I have not lived wholly in vain if my record were closed tonight I could still survey it with equanimity. Of late I have been tempted to look into the problems furnished by nature rather than those more superficial ones tor which our artificial state of society is responsible. Your memoirs will draw to an end, Mr. Moyers, upon the day that I crown my career by the capture or extinction of the most dangerous and capable criminal in America"
I am pleased to think that I shall be able to free society from any further effects of Architect Rove presence, though The Plague will remain trying to regain power but I can assure you that without their “Mastermind” their future plans will fall apart and the Grand Old Party will reborn with intellectual politicians with integrity whose only goal will be to contribute to the triumph of this great nation and therefore the triumph of humanity.
--The End--
Peace and Love,
Zarathustra’s friend

Ooh Anna D, you struck a nerve. I try to watch Maddow, Olbermann and Big Eddy everyday. I’m not sure when or what Maddow had said about Poland and Palau, but I can’t see her being insensitive. Maybe with Bush and his admin, but not Poland or Palau. And whatever she did say, I’ll bet it was based on facts. She always tries to state them and when she does make a mistake, she'll tells us. This, right there, disqualifies her from being a neocon.

Recently, Jon Steward got a little nitpicky and took a couple shots at her. One was for her timing and the other was for where she was reporting from, but he never did challenge the validity of her comments.

I like the way she exposed Dick Armey for acting like he was pro Medicare. (I think they had another exchange where she shut him up completely, I’ll look for it.)
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rachel-maddow-unmasks-dick-armeys-rad

I also liked her series of investigative reports about the C Street family’s influence in writing Uganda laws against gays. Here are 3 of her 4 to 6 reports (those guys are real scumbags):
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-us-ties-ugandan-anti
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-c-street-familys-uganda
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-rick-warren-forced-out

Take care.

Maybe I’m wrong, instead of starting with OUR CONGRESS, maybe we should go straight for the root. We can’t wait for them to derail themselves (a “no honor of among thieves” thingy), we need a plan to uproot these greedy megalomaniacal bastard ourselves.

(This is history repeating itself, only this time, with the help of computers and other communication devices (tv, radio, phones), evil has been optimized. Shall we toast to world chaos.)


Posted by: David F.


Bottom line is that they are using money and "religion" to take away EVERY HUMAN BEING"S right to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Basically, they are threatening us ala hooligans like "allenwrench" with being MICROWAVED by the "government"

if we stop hating

and hurting each other through the genius math formula of:

More misery for others =
more money for ME ME ME

ANd Rachel Maddow isn't "all that" - when she made her big debut on TV, she snarked about the countries participating in the coalition of the willing - making she liked the alliteration of putting "Poland and Palau" together into one "dumb innocent countries" category, but it made me wonder about HER world view - maybe how she categorizes "smart" countries is through her mono-issue world view and since Poland and Palau don't produce enough of HER type of sexual orientation, they aren't historically relevant? Dunno, but Rachel continues to come up with stuff that makes you wonder who "educated" her...definitely a NEOCON stamp is tatooed somewhere...

We need to print our own money - civil disobedience - because we REFUSE to use their blood soaked currency - as soon as you touch it (get "paid") you will be contributing to your own SLOW death as a LOVING human being...

Love that line from the 1970s movie called "Support Your Local Gunslinger" - "...it's your christian duty to tell me why you are going to blow me up..."

:-)

Ellen Raff, that’s just it, all the Congressional liberals do is talk about it, they never do anything. Why are these five shills still judges? Why can’t Obama use his office to find out who’s buttering theirs and their family’s bread? Maybe it’s because it’s the same people who are buttering Obama’s, Frank’s and the rest of Congress’ bread. I don’t know how many times I've heard people say that Bush has no shame, but then again, Bush never promised me “change.” Obama was probably our last hope, and it appears that his loyalty to big business is far more important to him than his oath to his country.

Also, I was wondering if Clinton had ever been grilled (with informed follow up questions) by any journalists about his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts. Do you see a pattern here?

The decision by the Supreme Court is so devastating to this democracy, I think it is a national emergency. The five justices who ruled against the law are outlaws. I was glad to hear the President speak out forcefully, and Barney Frank has talked about a response, but this issue is so dangerous it needs to be kept front and center of our consciousness.

Good suggestion Michael, “Don’t mourn, organize.” But if we’re gonna organize, we’ll need more than just a wedge issue game plan. We’re not fighting a bunch of homophobes or pro-lifers, we’re fighting multinational corporations which are rewriting our laws.

I think OUR CONGRESS should be the starting point. So, since OUR CONGRESS is being used as a tool for these corporations, we need to find a way to remove their grip from the Reid’s, the McConnell’s, the Pelosi’s and the Boner’s. Until this happens, all our other efforts will be useless.

I know this is a conspiracy theory, but I think all these corporations have been unified and are now all in a lockstep. Now you have to ask yourself, who could have got them into a lockstep? I think it’s the same people who have been keeping the Republicans in lockstep for the past 15, or so, years, the neocon oligarchy which is led by GHW Bush and his generals, Rumsfeld and Cheney. But it doesn’t stop there, the oligarchy could not have gotten to where it is today without Saudi money. I also think the Saudis own or control most of the American and Swiss banks, and they, along with the oligarchy, are behind our economic downfall. These two entities are the root of this globalization weed.

Maybe I’m wrong, instead of starting with OUR CONGRESS, maybe we should go straight for the root. We can’t wait for them to derail themselves (a “no honor of among thieves” thingy), we need a plan to uproot these greedy megalomaniacal bastard ourselves.

(This is history repeating itself, only this time, with the help of computers and other communication devices (tv, radio, phones), evil has been optimized. Shall we toast to world chaos.)

Look at where the money is coming from. Big money is buying our politicians, spin doctors are telling us how bad it is and Wall Street is bankrolling the anti reform movement.

It would take a very large group of dedicated mourners who were organized to the nines to defeat the well oiled political machine that is and will do what is politically and financially advantageous to them selves be it so corrosive and destructive to John Q taxpayer is an acceptable outcome.

Like sheep to the slaughter we rush willingly to our fate. It is after all too much work to think for ourselves when the spin doctors will do it for us

The Seniority System of Congress is the overriding problem interferring with the PEOPLE'S business.

First the Bush Rep. dropped the ball, now the Obama Dem. have fumbled--
ONLY Problem is they are not only in the wrong ball park, neither side knows what the game is!

Interstate competition, no pre exsisting conditions, or developed health issues can deny coverage, people cannot wait to get sick to get coverage, TORT reform, just a few workable changes and YOU would think a Congress full of lawyers and doctors with President Compromise could figure out how to get er done!

They are not playing by the rules and Mainstreet should take our ball and find another game!

Regretfully,

Billy Bob Florida

P White wrote, in part, "For one year they apparently solicited funds to pay the salary of those who solicited funds."

Let's not forget how the solicited funds got into their closed loop - it's all stolen money, soaked in blood, with a sprinkling of dust drugs...

When you look at who has all the money and how they got it, the "dollar" basically has NO VALUE left.

It was nice to hear someone talk about OFA (Organizing For America) I'm not certain at this point whether the Obama people or another group of Dems is responsible for this group now, but who ever set that agenda hammered many of the nails in the coffin of a meaningful health care bill.

For one year they apparently solicited funds to pay the salary of those who solicited funds. Nothing more. In fact, after attending OFA's/Obama's health care 'kick off' there's no doubt in my mind their whole focus was the prevention of any 'populous'style movement. I left that meet up staggering at the insipid 'pep talk' from the President and the completely pointless excercises put forth by OFA. I had the audacity to ask about organizing a kick off 'rally' and was greeted with stony glares. OFA and Obama's idea of a 'kick off' was to gather the troops, tell them to sit in the car with the engine running and then put the car up on blocks. It didn't take long for Obama's people to clarify their instructions. "Sit down and shut up."

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ