Tuesday, February 11, 2020

ABC Asking for Attacks Was a Lazy Way to Run a Debate








FAIR
 

ABC Asking for Attacks Was a Lazy Way to Run a Debate

by Julie Hollar
Election Focus 2020You knew it was going to be a long night when ABC's George Stephanopoulos spent the first 11 minutes of the February 7 Democratic presidential debate directing a discussion about how risky it would be to have a democratic socialist at the top of the ticket.
After asking Joe Biden about the "risks" of nominating Bernie Sanders (or Pete Buttigieg)—setting Biden up to make his central campaign claim of electability—Stephanopoulos asked Sanders "why shouldn't Democrats be worried," when Donald Trump "certainly thinks this label socialism will work" in defeating him?
After Sanders' response, Stephanopoulos asked the field, "Let me just ask, is anyone else on the stage concerned about having a democratic socialist at the top of the Democratic ticket?" Though Amy Klobuchar was the only candidate to raise her hand, he proceeded to turn to each remaining candidate to discuss socialism and electability.
Delving momentarily into policy, sort of, by asking Buttigieg whether Sanders' "healthcare plan can bring people together," and allowing a few more responses, Stephanopoulos turned back to non-policy issues with several questions about experience, this time focusing on Buttigieg.
In other words, the first half hour of the debate was almost entirely given over to non-policy sparring over electability (including the bogeyman of socialism) and experience.
Asking candidates to attack each other over electability or experience is one of the least useful ways to run a debate. Electability is a meaningless concept beloved by journalists who fear candidates who stray from the center (FAIR.org, 10/25/19); its ultimate test is not whether another candidate (or journalist) deems a candidate electable, but whether that candidate polls well and wins elections. And the candidate whose electability is most often questioned, Bernie Sanders, just won the popular vote in Iowa, and has consistently polled ahead of Trump in one-to-one matchups. (As Matthew Yglesias pointed out in Vox1/31/20—this is true even if the polling question includes Trump calling Sanders  “a socialist who supports a government takeover of healthcare and open borders.”)
ABC's Linsey Davis factchecks Pete Buttigieg in real time.
ABC's Linsey Davis factchecks Pete Buttigieg in real time.
Experience is at least somewhat more justifiable as a non-policy topic of interest, but simply asking opponents whether a candidate has the experience necessary to lead is lazy and rarely productive. As a rare example of a much more revealing way to talk about experience, take ABC correspondent Linsey Davis' question to Buttigieg about his oversight of South Bend's criminal justice system, in which disparities between black and white marijuana possession arrests increased during his tenure. When Buttigieg asserted that “the overall rate was lower than the national rate,” Davis corrected: “No, there was an increase. The year before you were in office, it was lower.”
Her refusal to let Buttigieg deny his record stands in stark contrast to the way moderators have repeatedly let Biden get away with denying his record on Iraq (FAIR.org, 1/9/20). In last week's debate, Biden once again lied about his Iraq vote, saying: "I trusted George Bush to keep his word. He said he was not going to go into Iraq. He said he was only using this to unite the United Nations to insist we get inspectors in to see what Saddam was doing."
Biden's latest version of his Iraq revisionism should have been particularly easy for his questioner (David Muir) to debunk, given that the Iraq War authorization vote came two days after Bush's infamous "mushroom cloud" speech, in which he laid out to the public why all efforts short of military action were likely to fail and announced that "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself—or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." But, whereas pressing candidates on their judgment and record would be a helpful way to get at the issue of experience, moderators instead seem to be mostly content to ask candidates to attack each other on the issue.
In total, ABC gave over more than a quarter of their prompts to non-policy issues (22 of 82), primarily these questions of electability and experience. International issues were the second-largest category (15), followed closely by governance and race (13 each) and the economy (12).
ABC's David Muir and Elizabeth Warren
ABC's David Muir once again pressing Elizabeth Warren to promise to continue the 18-year-long war in Afghanistan.
Of the international questions, several were about military, and ABC repeated its hawkish September debate performance (FAIR.org, 9/13/20)—including asking Elizabeth Warren almost exactly the same question she was asked in September. At that time, ABC's Muir asked her, "Would you keep [your] promise to bring the troops home starting right now with no deal with the Taliban?" When Warren answered in the affirmative, Stephanopoulos jumped in to make the correct answer clear:
Top US leaders, military leaders on the ground in Afghanistan, told me you can't do it without a deal with the Taliban. You just said you would, you would bring them home. What if they told you that? Would you listen to their advice?
ABC's inability to accept Warren's answer was made even more apparent when, in their second debate, Muir asked her virtually the exact same question:
Senator Warren, you recently said, quote, “We have one general after another in Afghanistan who comes in and says, ‘We’ve just turned the corner,’ and then what happens? It’s all the same. Someone new comes in and says, ‘We’ve just turned the corner.’ You said, “So many say it. We’re going in circles.” We were on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent months, and the generals told us that the US needs some US presence on the ground, US special forces some presence to go after ISIS and the terrorists. If you’re commander-in-chief, would you listen to the generals, or do they fall into the category of the generals you’ve mentioned before?
Muir continued to train fire on Warren's antiwar positions, giving the floor to Biden next:
I want to take this to the vice president, because you have said of Senator Warren’s comments before, that the United States should get out of the Middle East, you have said, “I quite frankly was surprised that I have never heard anyone say with any serious background in foreign policy that we should pull all troops out of the Middle East.” Is Senator Warren wrong on this?
Muir likewise put a hawkish spin on his questions about the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, setting the stage with this question to Buttigieg, which made no mention of international law, and followed the corporate media line that there was no doubt that Soleimani deserved to die (FAIR.org, 1/9/20):
While there is still debate about whether or not there was an imminent threat, there is no debate about whether or not Soleimani was a bad actor who was responsible for the deaths of many Americans. Given what you know about Soleimani, if your national security team came to you with an opportunity to strike, would Soleimani have been dead, or would he still be alive under your presidency?
Once again, the climate crisis got short shrift at five questions (6%); while some candidates, like Sanders and Steyer, tried to bring climate into other questions, ABC asked about only one environmental issue—the USMCA trade agreement—essentially pitching it as climate vs. jobs:
I want to turn to climate change and jobs here in America. President Trump just signed the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement, many call it an updated NAFTA. But it does include incentives to make cars here in North America, and it does open Canadian markets for American dairy farmers. Senator Sanders, as we sit here in New Hampshire tonight, both New Hampshire senators, Maggie Hassan and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, supported this, calling it a real win for workers and for farmers. You voted no, because you said you believe it takes us back years on climate. Were the senators from New Hampshire wrong?
In terms of how often each candidate was given the mike, Sanders and Biden, as the top-polling candidates, got the most speaking opportunities. But although Warren had twice the popular support as Buttigieg at the time (an average of 15% vs. 7.3%; see RealClearPolitics.com for all February 7 polling averages), he was given the floor 13 times to her 11. Klobuchar, despite averaging only 4.3% support in polls, got the same 11 chances to speak as Warren, and Tom Steyer, at 2.3%, only got one fewer at ten. In keeping with media's marked lack of interest in hearing Andrew Yang speak (FAIR.org, 1/4/20), he came in far behind the rest, with seven, though he polls almost as well ( 3.8%) as Klobuchar.

Featured image: Amy Klobuchar (right) answering ABC's request for a candidate willing to redbait Bernie Sanders.
ACTION ALERT: You can send messages to ABC News here (or via Twitter: @ABC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread.








FOCUS: As Roger Stone Awaits Sentencing Trump Hints at Pardon




Reader Supported News
11 February 20

We are “Reader Supported News” that’s how we do it, and we do it well. We answer to you. You Like that. We raise money from our readers to pay the bills. You don’t like that. You can’t have it both ways.
If you hang out, chip in. (And we need that now.)
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611




Reader Supported News
11 February 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News





FOCUS: As Roger Stone Awaits Sentencing Trump Hints at Pardon
Roger Stone. (photo: Joe Raedle)
Igor Derysh, Salon
Derysh writes: "President Donald Trump lashed out at federal prosecutors who recommended that his oldest political adviser, Roger Stone, serve up to nine years in prison after his conviction in former special counsel Bob Mueller's investigation."



“This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” Trump tweeted at 1 a.m. "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"

resident Donald Trump lashed out at federal prosecutors who recommended that his oldest political adviser, Roger Stone, serve up to nine years in prison after his conviction in former special counsel Bob Mueller's investigation.
Trump called the Department of Justice's recommendation that Stone serve seven to nine years behind bars "disgraceful."
"This is a horrible and very unfair situation," Trump tweeted just after 1 a.m. ET Tuesday morning. "The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"
Stone was convicted in November of making false statements to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice in connection to his contacts with WikiLeaks, which released emails stolen from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign by Russian military hackers during the 2016 campaign.
He joins former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, Manafort's deputy Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos as Trump aides convicted in Mueller's probe into the campaign's ties to Russia.
Prosecutors said in a 26-page sentencing memo Monday that Stone's crimes call for a sentence of 87 to 108 months in prison.
"Roger Stone obstructed Congress' investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, lied under oath and tampered with a witness," prosecutors said in the filing. "When his crimes were revealed by the indictment in this case, he displayed contempt for this court and the rule of law."
Prosecutors said during trial that Stone tried to hide his attempts to coordinate the release of the Clinton emails with Wikileaks. Stone also tried to threaten his friend Randy Credico to stop him from testifying to Congress, according to the Justice Department.
Stone "made repeated efforts to obtain information from an organization called WikiLeaks that could help the Trump campaign," the filing said, detailing his attempts to contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his public claims of inside information about upcoming releases.
"During this time period, Stone regularly communicated with senior Trump campaign officials," who "believed Stone was providing them with non-public information about WikiLeaks' plans" and "viewed Stone as the Trump campaign's access point to WikiLeaks."
Stone later lied to Congress about his efforts, prosecutors said.
"Stone's false statements about documents had a significant impact on the committee's investigation," the filing said, and prevented others from submitting evidence to investigators.
The filing went on to detail Stone's defiance of a gag order issued in the case as he sought to raise money for his legal defense.
"Foreign election interference is the 'most deadly adversar[y] of republican government,'" it said, quoting Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers No. 68. "The House Intelligence Committee that Stone obstructed was examining allegations that 'the Russian government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.' . . . It is against this backdrop that Stone's crimes — his obstruction, lies and witness tampering — must be judged . . . Stone chose — consciously, repeatedly and flagrantly — to obstruct and interfere with the search for the truth on an issue of vital importance to all Americans."
Many observers predicted that Trump could pardon Stone or commute his sentence after his late-night diatribe.
"While you were sleeping, the president was teeing up another potential pardon for another criminal ally," The Washington Post's Aaron Blake tweeted.
"Either he's gearing up to pardon this crony / criminal," CNN legal analyst Elie Honig added, "or he's getting ready to deploy [Attorney General Bill] Barr against perceived politics enemies. Or both."
After Trump reacted to his impeachment acquittal by purging his administration of officials that testified against him, national security attorney Bradley Moss predicted that the paperwork to commute Stone's sentence and any sentence that Flynn gets "likely is already drafted."













FOCUS: Pete Buttigieg's Policy Director Has Been Traveling the County for Months to Meet With "Investors" in His Campaign





Reader Supported News
11 February 20



We fight for justice all day long, every day. What our organization is experiencing is economic injustice. What we use the money for is what we do every day. And many of you ignore that vital funding need.

This organization fights for justice.

Help.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News









If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611





Reader Supported News
11 February 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News





FOCUS: Pete Buttigieg's Policy Director Has Been Traveling the County for Months to Meet With "Investors" in His Campaign
Sonal Shah, left, during a panel discussion at the Natural History Museum, London, on March 17, 2016. (photo: John Phillips/Getty Images/Chivas)
Ryan Grim, The Intercept
Grim writes: "The presidential campaign of former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has taken the unusual step of sending its national policy director, Sonal Shah, on the road. For the past several months, she has been headlining high-dollar fundraisers across the country, according to a slew of invitations obtained from a variety of sources."

It’s common for campaigns that rely on wealthy donors to lean on surrogates and senior officials to buttress their fundraising operations, but sending the aide in charge of crafting policy on a tour of American mansions is an unusual approach and wipes out the line between policymaking and solicitation of campaign contributions. Almost all of the invitations typically tout the role of Shah, a veteran of both Google and Goldman Sachs, as the campaign’s national policy director.
The news of Shah’s intimate involvement in Buttigieg’s fundraising comes as his campaign is under fire from both Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for his reliance on wealthy donors to power his campaign (see, especially, the wine cave). Buttigieg has argued that Democrats would be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs if they refused the support of the superrich. But Buttigieg is not just a passive recipient of big money; he devotes a significant amount of time and energy to soliciting it — in part by putting his chief policy adviser in the room with high-dollar donors. 
Sanders and Warren have argued that relying on wealthy donors blunts the ability of Democrats to go directly after President Donald Trump’s corruption. On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Warren argued that “the coalition of billionaires is not exactly what’s going carry us over the top.”
“Last count, he has about 40 billionaires who are contributing to his campaign, the CEOs of the large pharmaceutical industries, the insurance companies, and so forth,” Sanders told “Face the Nation,” referring to Buttigieg. “It matters enormously. That is precisely the problem with American politics.”
The Buttigieg campaign has been sensitive to the charge that he is overly reliant on big money, and has urged its small-dollar donors to give in increasingly small numbers to drive down the . average contribution amount. Shah’s months-long road trip is another indication, however, of just how significant high-dollar giving is to his campaign.
In a statement from spokesperson Sean Savett, the campaign did not directly address Shah’s close involvement in fundraising effort.
We are proud that more than 800,000 Americans have donated to our campaign and the only promise that any of them will ever get is that Pete will use their donations to defeat Donald Trump. We don’t agree with all of our supporters on every issue and what guides our policies is what’s best for America. Pete is from a town that was ravaged by corporate greed and he’s proposed a bold, progressive agenda, which includes holding bad actors accountable and paying for our plans with higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans who can afford it. The stakes in this election are clear and stark and we can’t go into this fight with one hand tied behind our backs. That’s why whether you can give $3 or $300, whether you are a Democrat, Independent or Republican, we welcome you to our campaign and won’t turn you away if you’re ready to help rid us of Donald Trump.
Shah’s background positions her well to connect with the high-net-worth individuals within the Democratic Party that are powering Buttigieg’s bid and are concerned about income inequality, climate change, health disparities, or other social inequities. While she was a top official at both Goldman Sachs and Google before joining the Obama administration — spanning the two dominant elements of the corporate wing of the party, Wall Street and Silicon Valley — she worked in the divisions of those firms publicly dedicated to doing social good. At Goldman, she designed environmental strategy. At Google, she did global development. More recently, she became founding executive director of the Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation.
The attempt to marshal corporate resources in the service of society is in line with the Buttigieg approach to economic policy and politics, which aims to leave the system largely untouched but divert some resources toward charitable efforts and social and technological innovation.  
The high-dollar fundraisers are often organized around lofty themes, such as the one scheduled for February 21: a “conversation about economic equity and justice” at an undisclosed Baltimore location. Shah’s co-host that evening will be Chike Aguh, billed on the invite as the campaign’s policy adviser responsible for its Douglass Plan and the “Future of Work.” The Douglass Plan is the campaign’s effort at outreach to the black community and was rolled out with claims of support from high-profile black leaders in South Carolina who had told the campaign that they did not want to be listed as endorsers
The earliest invite obtained by The Intercept dates to October 2, and there have been at least 22 additional events held since then, with Shah serving either as solo host or, occasionally, co-hosting with another Buttigieg aide. Top-level access to the events costs a maximum contribution of $2,800. 
All told, Shah has been meeting with high-level donors on at least a weekly basis throughout the fall and winter, whether for pancakes in Newton; cocktails in Tulsa, Austin, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, or Manhattan; lunch in Chicago; or video calls with Shah that investors can buy their way into. 
The Buttigieg campaign is in the habit of referring to donations as “investments.” The RSVP for many of the fundraisers goes to the email address investment@peteforamerica.com. The fundraising team’s titles similarly suggest that there is a return for money invested in the campaign. Tom Strong-Grinsell, for instance, is the campaign’s “regional investment director,” handling New York. Swati Mylavarapu, a Silicon Valley tech executive and startup investor, is the campaign’s “national investment chair.” Anthony Mercurio, a Hillary Clinton alum, is “national investment director.” (Mylavarapu and Shah joined forces for at least one San Francisco fundraiser, a January 26 event called “Chefs for Pete,” with food by chef Alice Waters.)
The link between “investing” in a campaign and the policy it advocates for is precisely the argument Sanders has made against Buttigieg. “When you have the heads of large pharmaceutical companies contributing to your campaign, you are not going to aggressively deal with the fact that, in some cases, we pay 10 times for the same exact drugs as our friends in Canada or in Europe pay. You’re not going to take on the collusion and the corruption of the drug companies who are ripping us off.”














BREAKING: Elon Musk’s gamble BLOWS UP in his face PAY ATTENTION! ELECT CLOWNS EXPECT A CIRCUS!

  ELON MUSK TOLD MAGA DIM WITS TO CUT CHILD CANCER REEARCH FUNDING! WHAT HAS ELON MUSK EVER DONE FOR ANYONE?  THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING SOCIAL S...