OBAMA - WHAT THE LAME DUCK CONGRESS REALLY MEANT

It looked like it was all over bar the shouting - the Democrats had received, in the November elections, by the President's own admission, a "shellacking". Not only had they lost the House of Representatives but had also lost 6 seats in the Senate, where for practical purposes they needed 60 of the 100 votes to pass any legislation. They had had great difficulty in mustering this number with 59 Senators in their caucus and now they had 53. It appeared that the traditional "lame duck" Congressional session, that is held in November and December, would be one big yawn. The latter session is held with the "old" congress members and traditionally is very unproductive. The demoralized Democrats had a long list of legislation to pass. Legislation that the Republicans had blocked over the past two years. The cock of the hoop Republicans stated objective was to "run out the clock" and deny the Obama administration any "successes" with his agenda. They were now one step further in denying him a second term.

ROUND ONE.


The number one priority of the Obama administration was the passage of the tax bill. Obama and the Democrats had campaigned on this issue in the "shellacking" election. There they supported no extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% earning over $250,000. Now there could  be no way that this bill could obtain 60 votes in this new environment as it couldn't before. Then Obama, to the Democrats chagrin, did a deal with the Republicans, inter alia, backing down on the tax increase for the rich. (See blog - Obama - From Yes We Can To Yes We Cave,)  The tax bill that the Republicans had wanted from the get go was now the Administration's policy and subsequently passed with enthusiastic  majority Republican support. The Democratic leader of the House of Representatives and outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, epitomized Democratic disgust by boycotting the signing of the Bill into law. It appeared that not only would the Democratic agenda not be fulfilled the Republican one was prematurely on it's way.


THE NEXT ROUNDS.


It was in this context that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate faced the rest of the lame duck session. Reid had to be exhausted as he had come from nowhere to retain his seat in Nevada where the GOP, Sarah Palin and her candidate had gone full blast to beat him. He was now sitting on a string of legislation that was considered essential to the Obama agenda. The latter had been lingering in the Senate for up to two years unable to overcome the Republican threat of a fillibuster. It would need all the parliamentary and persuasive skills to get bills that couldn't pass in two years passed in less than two months. The irony was that, notwithstanding the Republican success in the elections, most of the issues in these Bills were supported by the electorate.

The Republican leadership, flushed with their success in the wake of the Obama tax cave, made it quite clear that no other legislation would see the light of day as "there was no time to seriously consider all the issues in this short period of time", "that it was sacrilegious to deny the legislature their opportunity to spend the Christmas holidays with their families", "that it would be against the will of the electorate to enact the Democratic agenda after the shellacking", "that with all this legislation coming at them in such a short time they couldn't really properly consider it", etc etc.


What the Republican leadership had not counted on was the disaffection of rank and file Republican Senators. Up till now they had held tight ranks. The latter, however, had obviously been closer to the ground in the election. The central issue was more like, "throw the bums out" and as there were more Democratic bums to throw out the Republicans had "triumphed". The public discontent was largely fueled by the dead economy and unemployment rather than social and international issues


DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.


On the face of it the issue of gays serving openly in the Military was pretty well decided. The issue had jumped through all the hoops needed for acceptance. There had been extensive review and polling in every section of the military. All the military and their brass were pro as well as the Secretary of Defense, a Republican. The polls were for it. Legal challenges in favour of it had been successful - one litigated by the gay Republican party group! However, the Republicans stuck to their mantra - that the election results had shown otherwise and John McCain, in one of his many about faces, needed more and more Senate hearings.

However, endless public displays of the Generals and public opinion polls began to make the Republican argument appear ridiculous. Also the Conservative base of the Republican party were not that vocal in their opposition. So a few Republican Senators defied the leadership and switched and the Democrats received their first flush of victory.

THE START TREATY WITH RUSSIA


This nuclear reduction and inspection treaty was the acknowledged key foreign policy issue of the Obama administration This too had also been repeatedly rejected by the Republicans. This hurdle was even greater for Reid as he needed 67 votes to ratify a Treaty. No Democratic President had ever achieved this in the post war period. Obama desperately needed this ratification for his credibility as a world leader. The Russians had already stated that they could not trust the Americans if this treaty was "rejected". The Republican leadership were as confident as they were adamant about this one. There were plenty of rationalizations as to why it should not be passed. If it wasn't passed Obama would look weak and unpresidential and it was after all the Republican leaders top agenda item to deny him a second term.

Once again everybody who was anybody was rolled out to show support for this treaty. This included every living Secretary of State from Kissinger onwards. Colin Powell and others all argued that it would be a disaster for American foreign policy if this Treaty was not ratified by the US. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes several Republicans, had heard credible evidence on numerous occasions as to why this Treaty was crucial. So once again the Republican rank and file defied their leadership and Reid garnered 71 votes this time.

THE 9/11 HEALTH CARE BILL.


This Bill dealt with the bizarre situation where the 9/11 first responders'  health care needs were not being met. This included thousands of firemen, policemen and the like.  This circumstance had come about as a result of the dysfunctional health care system. This results in the severely ill heroes  caught in between, workman compensation,insurance, private health care insurance and public insurance agencies and their failure to meet the specialized needs of this group.  The upshot was that severe respiratory conditions, post traumatic stress disorders and cancer treatments were not being funded. This Bill had received short shrift form the Republicans at the beginning of the lame duck session and was unceremoniously blocked from debate. The ostensible reason being the cost. The Bill had been around for years and had originally been introduced by Hillary Clinton when she was in the Senate.

Unlike the other issues the media had virtually ignored it and it was not in the forefront of the public psyche. Reid did not think it was worthwhile using up more precious time on it. Parliamentary procedure is ponderous and takes forever. He also had financial bills to pass to keep the government running.

So the issue was dead until Jon Stewart elected to feature the parlous situation these workers found themselves in, some who even were not getting cancer treatment. (See Blog - John Stewart and Sanity.) He featured the issue in two consecutive programs. He castigated everyone from the Congress to the Media. He berated Fox News, the flagbearer of the Republicans,  who regularly feature the significance of 9/11. The upshot was that every Senator had their phones ringing off the hook to revisit the issue and suddenly it became alive again. A compromise was reached on cost and the Bill was passed without opposition!


OBAMA, THE GOP, THE LAME DUCK SESSION AND THE FUTURE.


Obama has obviously claimed victory for his agenda although he was not out on the stump for any of this. After his deal on taxes he was mum. In addition to all of the above a Food Safety Bill and a Government Funding Bill for three months were passed. Obama has not been credited by the Democratic pundits at all.   Obama is hailing this as a triumph for bipartisanship and maintaining that "We are not doomed to endless gridlock". Again this is not gaining too much traction amongst the Democratic pundits and if credit is being dished out it is to Reid and Pelosi. In fact Reid's role is being even acknowledged by influential Republican Senator Bob Graham who says that Reid "ate the Republicans' lunch."

One thing for certain is that this lame duck session has done Obama no harm. The highly respected CNN commentator, David Gergen, who has advised several Presidents, including Nixon, Ford, Reagan and even Clinton, has hailed these legislative outcomes as "a string of victories" for Obama . Gergen believes that these "victories" have significantly improved Obama's hand maintaining that he has bounced back even more quickly than Bill Clinton after his reverses in mid first term elections.  In support of his view, Gergen maintains - "From my biased perspective, I also thought that the president was more effective because he seemingly played these fights from the background rather than the foreground. We heared about him each day making phone calls, bringing in votes, but we didn't see him consistently on the  podium. It worked!" 

This does seem odd logic, namely, that Obama has more pull in the Republican caucus than the Republican leadership  has and the best way for him to succeed is to keep quiet in public. More likely is that the electorate are sick and tired of the politicians being purely party political on these specific issues and to a lesser or greater extent, the Senate Republican rank and file "got it".  However from the public perspective Obama's tax move also did him no harm. In a CNN opinion poll 59% of respondents maintained that Obama was doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans in Congress.

THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

It is going to be a very interesting two years. The Republican leadership must have learned that they just can't run on being anti - Obama.  Also there is going to be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. What will be the response of Sarah Palin to these "sell outs" in the next Republican primaries? Up to now her biggest successes have been in the Primary Republican elections where she has attempted to purge the party of the compromisers. The Conservative Tea Party that was started as a result of governmental excesses and bail out money still has a 43% favorable rating. Their influence is being acknowledged by new House Speaker Boehner who has decreed that the American Constitution will be read every second day in the house!

Watch Michael Huckabee who is a "softer gentler" Conservative Republican. He could well emerge as Sarah Palin's only serious rival. His conservative credentials are impeccable. He politely continued opposing McCain in the 2008 Primaries till the latter obtained the required number of electoral votes to be the Republican nominee, thereby giving him continued public exposure. He too, like Sarah, has his own Fox News show giving him access to the Republican electorate.  He publically differed with Palin on one of her indefensible rants against Michelle Obama and he was on the Jon Stewart show that led to the recanting of the the 9/11 Responders Health Care Bill. He agreed with Stewart and the next day Fox News were on sides.  He is also playing it really cool saying that Palin is the odds on favourite to win the Republican nomination.

THE REAL FIGHT AND IT'S OUTCOME

Also how is the economy going to play out? Obama's fate hangs largely on that. What legislation is the Republican House of Representatives going to present to the still Democratically controlled Senate? The dispute is going to be about economic philosophies and how the present economic mess is to be resolved. The Lame Duck session Democratic victories have nothing to do with these realities.  In fact the tax bill was the Republican version and the Government spending Bill was significantly pruned. This is where the real fight is going to take place. Even Obama's Health Reform legislation is in jeopardy if funding is blocked.

The bottom line is where is the money going to come from to get this consumer economy going and cut back the debt? The Republicans are not interested in taxing the rich who are earning the greatest proportion of money since the Great Depression - the top 1% earning 23% of money. The Democrats are loath to cut back on programs that largely affect the middle class and poor. The claim that "big money" is more in control of the agenda then ever before doesn't help solve the problem. There is, however a bipartisan Presidential panel that has looked at this problem realistically and has made recommendations.

At the end of the day the outcome of this issue will determine the Obama legacy and even whether he will have a second term or not. Franklin Roosevelt would not have been able to dominate the international and the local scene with the Great Society had he not turned the economy. What would Reagan's legacy be without Reagonomics? To effect this impact Obama is going to have to get into the mix - phone calls behind the scene just won't cut it. He will have to present legislation and fight for it and then compromise on the basis of political reality rather than have an agenda and stick around and hope that Congress will enact legislation to meet it. His actions will decide whether his remarkable activist, intellectual, organizational and oratorial skills will be translated into a transformational period in American history.

BISHOP TUTU AND THE JEWISH PROBLEM

ANTI - APARTHEID AND HUMAN RIGHTS ICON

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is synonymous with fearless anti - apartheid opposition, the overturn of the apartheid regime and setting the "new" South Africa on a non violent road. Nor has he been reluctant, in the post apartheid era to criticize the new regime and continue his crusade for justice. He is up there with icons such as Mandela and Albert Luthuli, fellow South African nobel peace laureates, as the standard bearers for decency, forgiveness and love of fellow human beings in their fight for equality. His religious mantle has lent further credibility to his seemingly never ending crusade for equality and humanity. It is fair to argue that his role as Chairman of the controversial "Truth and Conciliation Commission", that  chronicled and sometimes pardoned the most egregious of apartheid's perpetrators of crimes against humanity, was partially responsible to bringing closure for many. By so doing he contributed much to defuse the post apartheid anger thereby allowing the new South Africa to move forward peacefully.


TUTU THE ANTI - SEMITE ?

How does one equate this with the argument that he is a longstanding unashamed anti-semite? This claim has been doing the rounds in some form or another for years even in the years of the "struggle". Understandably this type of smear was ignored by the main media. What was initially regarded as slander, undue paranoia and at best "sensitivity to any criticism of Israel or Zionism" has now reached a high level of credibility. What finally led to the public airing of this issue was Tutu's public virulent opposition to the Cape Town Opera Group's performing Porgy and Bess in Tel Aviv. This was followed up by demands for a total cultural boycott of Israel, it's academics and businesses.

There are petitions out in South Africa to have Tutu removed as patron of the two Holocaust Museums and the newspaper letter columns are awash with the controversy. Alan Dershowitz, the famed lawyer and author, has slammed Tutu both in articles and at a Conference on Racism in Geneva in April 2010, calling Tutu a racist and a bigot. Resurfacing again is The University of Minnesota's retraction, in 2007, of an invitation to speak as his past criticisms of Israel veered on anti - semitism.

Also this opened the floodgates of previous statements attributed to him that cannot even be argued to be "merely" anti Zionist or anti Israeli but are blatantly anti - semitic. Statements such as, "Whether Jews like it or not, they are peculiar people. They cannot ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people", and ".. the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby and scary in this land, (America),...", are nothing but old fashioned  anti - semitic stereotypes. His response to all these allegations, according to Dershowitz is, "Tough Luck and my Dentist's name is Dr. Cohen". Some of my best friends are..... .

In addition there are endless statements on the holocaust that are attributed to him that are not far off those of Ahmadinejad. It is no wonder that his bald statement that Israel is as bad as South Africa has not had too much traction. It is difficult to take him seriously in the context of his documented anti -  semitism and circles that genuinely believe that Israel are not exactly blameless must find him an embarrassment to their cause.


 TUTU, MANDELA, THE SOUTH AFRICAN JEWS AND THE STRUGGLE


A real irony is the difference in Mandela's attitude towards the Jews. While not compromising his belief that Arafat deserved his support - to the chagrin of many - he has acknowledged again and again the disproportionate role, in terms of numbers, that those who were regarded as Jews, played in the fight against apartheid. One of his first speaking engagements following his release from prison was at the Sea Point Synagogue in Cape Town. Here he recalled the fact that only a jewish lawyer would employ him as an apprentice lawyer,  his white brothers in the struggle were disproportionally jewish, several of his pro bono lawyers were jews and the ongoing presence and activism of jews, on so many levels, throughout the apartheid years.

So as a South African born jew and as a citizen of the world, Tutu's anti semitism sticks in the crawl. I find it impossible to reconcile all this on an intellectual and emotional level. Dershowitz calls him a jew hater - this man who has preached tolerance, forgiveness and love.  He calls for forgiveness of the Holocaust perpetrators and all the perpetrators of current atrocities so the only group who appear to be beyond redemption are the jews.  If Tutu was speaking this way of any group, religion, race or nation his prejudice would be unfathomable. He has dedicated his life to fight prejudice and bigotry yet, it appears, that this has been pursued, in a background of bigotry.

At the end of the day, in the grand scheme of politics, Tutu carries very little weight. His belief that he can effect a boycott of Israel is pie in the sky. But he is a role model to many and with the flare up of anti - semitism, particularly in Europe, he lends some respectability and can add fuel to the fire.

 On a personal level it is sad to see one of one's heros exposed as a hypocrite. The personal sense of loss is profound.

OBAMA - FROM " YES WE CAN" TO "YES WE CAVE"

FROM YES WE CAN TO YES WE CAVE

As each day passes President Obama's stocks precipitously drop. For someone, who two years ago was not only America's last hope, but the world's, the Nobel Peace Laureate's fall is mind boggling. This critique may appear harsh as, after all, he has made historic legislative breakthroughs in health care and financial reform. But was that his work or that of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Congressional Democrats who had the courage of his convictions?

Throughout his term he has shown a disinclination for getting involved in the "nitty gritty" mix of political horse trading. It was as if he really believed the hype that was being written about him that he was the statesman that could bridge the gap between all groups on all stages. On the American stage he seemed desperate to "cooperate" with the Republicans. His campaign slogan that, "There are no Red States, there are no Blue states just the United States" seems to have become his overriding priority rather than all the other domestic issues he ran on.

The discontent against his modus operandi has been simmering for some time. James Carville, the arch Democratic lobyist, not so long ago, bluntly said that if Obama had one of Hilary Clinton's balls he would then have two! Not only has not won over the Republicans but he is loosing the Democratic base that elected him. He already has lost the Independents and youth that took him over the hill to beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries and John McCain in the Presidential election.

THE FINAL NAIL AND REALITY

The "compromise", that has finally let all hell break loose, is Obama's support for the continued income tax break for those earning more than $250,000 a year in return for continuing tax breaks for those earning less, (not really a compromise as it would take the most cynical to argue that tax breaks should only be for the high earners). In addition the Republicans would agree to a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits for the 2 year unemployed.

These issues have really no traction with the electorate. Well over 50%, notwithstanding Obama's low poll numbers, do not support these policies. It is fair to say that the democratic media and base are unsympathetic to his argument that this was the best compromise possible and he was saving the embattled middle class by compromising with the "hostage takers". They wanted him to fight tooth and nail. The prevailing mantra is, "Let the Republicans be seen to be taking tax breaks away from lower income Americans and not funding the unemployed". Stare them out - don't cave.

The lame duck Democratic House Majority once again passed a motion restricting tax cuts only to those earning less than $250,000 signaling exactly what they felt and what the Democratic position should be. The cry of the Democrats is that the Republicans have procedurally stalled every bit of legislation by the Democratic majority and there is no reason to cave into them just because they won the House of Representatives. Obama ignored this not so subtle hint as to the way he should go.

To add insult to injury this compromise was preceded by Obama unilaterally declaring a pay freeze to all Federal employees. This to the joy of the Republicans and the anger of the Unions for he received nothing in return from the Republicans.

THE COMPROMISE ISSUE

The tax issue and compromise is symbolic of the philosophical differences between the two parties and the way they caricature each other.

To the Democrats it epitomizes the fat cat uncaring Republicans and their focus on the wealthy. The Dems believe that this is all based on the myth of "trickle down" economics. To the Republicans, the Democrats are exhibiting their "tax and spend" philosophy. Furthermore, the Republicans believe that the Democrats are creating a welfare society with more an more entitlement programs.

However it is the Democrats that are up in arms about this compromise. The Republicans are hailing it is true bipartisanship. These "Bush" tax cuts are a highly sensitive issue and were only voted in as a result of Dick Cheney, using his prerogative as Vice President, to break a tie vote in the senate. The Democrats have maintained that this 2% of the American citizenry will increase the deficit by 7 trillion dollars. They also maintain that the Republican argument that it is these tax payers who will produce the jobs for the economic recovery is not supported by the facts as they, to date, have not.

WHITHER OBAMA

What has produced this disconnect between the expectations of Obama and his performance? The growing swell of "draft Hillary and I told you so supporters" believe they have the answers. Obama has had no experience in the hurly burly of political infighting. He has a need to be loved and accepted by all. Most of all he has a need to show that he is a true blue American that can unite this country. He does not understand the way it all works or alternatively he really believes that he can change it all by remaining above the fray and be the great conciliator.  It is apparent that he has not made the transition from an articulate campaigning activist to a player in power politics.

The irony is the Republicans continually bate Obama by saying he is no Bill Clinton who "really understood bipartisanship". This is the same Bill Clinton whom Newt Gingridge, the Republican Speaker of the House, ruefully maintained that Clinton was persuasive, persistent and very difficult to refuse. The same Bill Clinton whom, in spite of his "bipartisanship" the Republicans tried to impeach when he had a 70% approval rating.

The message the Democrats want to send to Obama is to let history look after itself and to stand on the  principles he ran on. There is little doubt that he is facing a Democratic revolt over this deal. The only question is it's extent.

Obama is making it harder and harder to get reelected. George Bush, the elder, never got past his decision to raise taxes. He reneged on his campaign promise "Read my lips - no new taxes" and had to face ad after ad where his volte - face was replayed.

The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, has unashamedly maintained that the top Republican priority is to limit Obama to one term. They want him to carry on just as he is. He can have their love every time he caves in and they will even say, once he is gone, that he was better than Jimmy Carter.

THE GOP, THE PRESIDENCY AND SARAH PALIN

Sarah Palin, the poster child for the Republican Party's revival after Obama's sweep in 2008, is producing a massive headache for the party leaders. She is the one person who presently stands in the way of Obama being a one term President. Nowhere was this made clearer when Barbara Bush, wife of the GOP godfather, 41st President, George Herbert Walker Bush, stated for all the world to hear on Larry King Live, that she was "beautiful and should stay in Alaska".

SARAH THE PHENOM

Sarah Palin, who has become a public relations phenom, has no such intention. The best she could do  was to return to Alaska to do an 8 part reality TV series where we see Sarah en famille, hunting, fishing and shooting - wild life as well as words of wisdom to the world. Sarah, may I call her Sarah - everyone else does, has become the most marketable commodity in the USA. Her most recent book received a 4 and a half million dollar advance and her speaking engagements "honoraria" are up there with ex presidents. She has done Fox ratings no harm and between her and her publicity hungry family she is daily in the headlines.

What is it with this lady who exudes charisma? She was given a massive start by John McCain, who in a Hail Mary attempt to win the Presidency in 2008, made her his Vice Presidential pick. In no time she let it be known that she is not just a pretty face. She is fiercely independent, has views on everything, she is street smart and most importantly has caught the mood of public discontent with her de facto leadership of the Tea Party movement.  That more than anything else is what has propelled her to the forefront of the political scene in the US.

On a personal level she is unashamedly feminine. Everything around her personal life just hangs out. Her  daughter's out of wedlock child, her decision to give birth to her Down Syndrome child, her man who stands by his woman and all the family problems are there, uncensored for all the world and it's cameras to see. All of this "homeliness", seemingly, adding to her appeal.

In the 2010 midterm elections she endorsed candidates left right and center, (just right politically though). Most significantly she had her greatest success with the Republican Primaries. She ousted many establishment candidates who she considered too moderate. Her success in the General Election with her chosen candidates was mixed however. Some of these candidates that emerged from the Republican Primaries, were objectively, off the wall, in main stream politics. This lead the influential Republican Congressman Bachus to tell the Chamber of Commerce that Palin cost the GOP the senate. Others have argued however that she was the rallying point that won the GOP the house and brought out the base.


SARAH, THE GOP AND THE PRESIDENCY

One thing for certain is that she will not go away. No-one more than her has honed the attributes of entertainment and politics that is so uniquely American and that has proved such a recipe for political success. She is show business personified. Mix that with a broad popular appeal, her ability to put her pulse on "grievances" and skill at being the populist  - she ousted the "establishment"  Republican Governor in the Alaskan Primary at the outset and ever since then has retained the populist image.

From a GOP point of view she controls the base. She is leaving no room for maneuver and that coupled with name recognition makes her the odds on favourite to win the GOP nomination for the Presidency. If the establishment turns against her they run the risk of splitting the GOP

Her problem, of course, is her manifest ignorance and her perceived prejudices. She shoots from the hip. Rather than say she doesn't know she will give an answer. She is scary but that will not scare away her base, who believes as she does, that her "slips of the tongue" and her "down to earthiness", (a euphemism for ignorance), are blown out of proportion by the liberal media. They believe as she does, for example, when referring to her advocating the backing of "our North Korean allies":


"It seems they couldn't resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline," Palin wrote. "The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us."

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WINNING AND LOOSING USA ELECTIONS AND SARAH

American elections are really decided by a tiny swing vote - assuming the bases of both parties have delivered. (The latter is not an assumption that always can be taken for granted. It can be in the case of Sarah.) The moderate independents whole sway. They put Obama in power and are currently trending against him. No poll shows Obama with near a 50% approval rating. There is only one poll result that can give Obama any cheer and that is the  8% - 12% lead he has over Palin in a head to head Presidency run off.

America, as we all know, is permanently in "status electionius". The Presidential Primaries start in 13 months time. (A fact not lost on Sarah's choice of venues for her book promotion tour).  Much can change on the political and economic fronts that may influence the Congress elections. Nothing, however, will change on the Sarah story and therefore the Presidential race. She will run for President. She will win the Republican nomination. What remains to be seen is whether or not the Republican Party hierachy will support her.  I think not. They have to hope that someone will emerge from the shadows to beat her because it is hard to see front runners Huckabee or Romney do it. Again, I think no one can. Her publicity machine rolls on and no-one can catch her up.

The impact of all of this on the GOP's Presidential ambitions can be humongous. It is fair to say that the GOP cherish the Presidency more than they do Congress. At the moment their key strategy as is Sarah's is just anti Obama. Sarah and her Tea Party are a double edge sword that have the potential to untopple their greatest ambition. She can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - and allow an indecisive, unpopular President in bad economic times to be re-elected.

NPR - THE LAST OR A LOST HOPE?

NPR - THE LAST HOPE

National Public Radio has been known for many years as the beacon of hope in a sea of sensationalism and onesidedness.  To this end NPR has carefully and painstakingly painted itself as an independent, unbiased, balanced, comprehensive, non - xenophobic, investigative, society - oriented entity, free of commercial influence and the very epitome of what the First Amendment is all about - freedom of speech. Implicit in all of this is the perception of non authoritianism and of a free and of open exchange of ideas.

NPR, (together with less powerful Public Television), are the only media entities that could argue they are not about ratings, and therefore they are not dependent on whether they are able to sell soap or anything else but rather they are about "news and the public interest". Thus to  it's increasing number of faithful listeners NPR purports to provide a sanctuary from the biased and commercially saturated 24 hour news media. .

So what is the problem ?

JUAN WILLIAMS

Juan Williams had two jobs - one with NPR and the other with the unashamedly pro Republican Fox News.  The high profile and highly independent Williams is a seasoned veteran, who as an African American, has written much on the Civil Rights struggle. It was on the Fox network that the interchange took place that created the current crises. The context was in the wake of the bohaai Fox commentator, Bill O'Reilly, had created by saying that it was the Muslims that were responsible for 9/11, Williams  berated O'Reilly for this all encompassing assertion and stereotyping. In the heated debate Williams admitted that he felt scared when he travelled on an airplane when there were passengers that were in Muslim garb. He felt this need to be said if we were ever going to resolve the biases that this emotional subject evoked .

NPR AND THE AFTERMATH

In a lightening response to Williams "politically incorrect" statement on Fox, NPR summarily dismissed him from NPR. This action being effected on the phone by an Administrative Assistant. The mess was further compounded when the arrogant NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on being called to explain the arbitrary action maintained that this type of statement was contrary to NPR policy and should be between Williams and his psychiatrist. The CEO opined that no employee of NPR should make a statment like that. The more this controversy continued the more the NPR hierarchy portrayed itself as autocratic, judgemental and the arbiters of what should or not be part of the public debate.

As the outcry increased the CEO then belatedly offered a half apology - not for the dismissal itself - but rather the way it was executed. Needless to say this fueled the fires further. Critisicm included the fact that this was insane political correctness and  led to accusations that NPR were openly leftist.Then, if, as a gesture to the right, what immediately followed was a NPR ban on any of it's employees to attend the Stewart and Colbert Washington rally! This bringing NPR more and more into the loony limelight.

While NPR's supporters winced it's detractors rubbed their hands with glee. This was always what they had maintained about NPR - that they geared their investigations, programs and even news reportage to their ideological left slant. They were no more democratic than a Public Company arbitrarily firing an employee without even a hint of due process.

WILLIAM'S RESPONSE

Williams in an extensive interview with his old friend and colleague Diane Reeme on her popular NPR talk show maintained that his statement came in the context of him "going after O'Reilly". He was deeply pained at the way he had been treated. He maintained that if you don't toe the party, (NPR), line you are not only tossed, humiliated but had your mental stablity publically questioned. He said he was asked whether he would have made the same statement on NPR and he responded in the affirmative. This was a matter of integrety and he exhibited the same professionalism regardless of where he was.

The interview between the two colleagues, after the initial pleasantries, was always a bit strained. When Reeme congratulated him on his new $2,000,000 contract with Fox, who were loving every minute of this, he responded almost pathetically that he hadn't begun to get over what has happened to him to think about that.

To add insult to injury he alleged that NPR were biased as to whom they invited as guests. Reeme was palpably taken aback by this statement and challenged him but Williams stuck to his guns. One thing for sure if this interview was designed to "smooth matters over", it did anything but. When Reeme queried whether he would respond to the belated offer from CEO Schiller to meet, he countered, "What for?".

More significantly this ugly incident has created a wide credibility gap between what NPR claims it stands for and it's manifest behavior. How it will all end is uncertain at this stage. NPR can only hope that it will go away and the whole incident will be regarded as an aberration. Had it not come at the time of the election it would have certainly become the issue "de jour" of all the networks. The fact that it did may well provide NPR with damage control it could not effect itself.

JOHN STEWART AND SANITY

John Stewart represents many persona to many people. At the most simplistic he is light entertainment at the end of the day. To others, the dissafected youth, he represents the only source of news there is. To the right he is the epitome of all things wrong in this country and it's social and financial degradation and a "bigot" to boot. To the left he is a double - edged sword. On the one hand he can potentially mobilize the youth that catapulted Obama into power. However, he is totally disolutioned with the whole process of Washington and it's inherent corruption, which by definition includes the Democrats.

Notwithstanding all of the above as a result of his consistent approach to the news and the media he has  found himself central to the debate of the future of the country in general and the cliffhanger November election in particular.

From all appearances  this is a role he does not relish. His appearance on Larry King Live showed a tired, somewhat irritated and haggard Stewart. His appearance in of itself represented acknowledgment of his central role in the US social and political scene. In this interview he outlined his assessment of the US political scene. He came short of maintaining that the elections were irrelevant but echoed the Tea Party cry that the citizenry were angry and felt left out. He maintained the obvious - that the central government and their backers were only interested in their own agenda rather than the " 85% of the electorate." The latter, he maintained, were too busy meeting the needs of their families than to involve themselves in the manipulations of Washington.

In all the interviews he has conducted Stewart has maintained that it is not responsibility to provide an unbiased assessment of the options but rather that this is the responsibility of the main media. His is the "false news", he is a satirist, and the 24 hour media has a responsibility not to pander to the sensational but rather the facts and the options society has.

If anyone doubts the significance that this "one man show" has on the American scene they just have to reflect on the fact that President Obama is appearing as his guest on The Daily Show on  October 27th - 5 days before a crucial election. He appears to be genuinely flattered but not side tracked from his main objective - the truth and the American people. To this end he is organizing a rally to take the American people,"Back to Sanity". Sanity, it would appear to be defined, as distinct from hype, special interest, inherent corruption, manipulation, distraction from reality, hyperbole and all the other distortions. He maintains that he has  not any political objective but rather a reorientation of the current reality society faces. The latter, for example, need not have to worry about what a candidate said 20 years ago but rather focus on the options and sacrifices we face to survive and the candidate's solutions to these.

Ironically, the extent of the impact he might have or not have in the future, depends on the turnout and the outcome of his rally that he has designated as a "Rally for Sanity" on October 30th, 2010 in Washington D. C.

At the end of the day it is a sad commentary that a satirist is central to a debate on the political future of the USA. It is unfair to put this responsibility on him when there are several media channels whose ostensible mission to objectively inform society of their options. As he is pointed out again and again they are putting other commercial agendas ahead of this.