Dan O'Mahony's Open Salon Blog

Sons of Oligarchy: Mitt Romney, Sergeant at Arms.

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:01:11 -0500

He’s donned his colors. He has his eyes on the top spot and is making his move, but right now Mitt Romney is standing strong as the protector of the great lie, “Corporations are people my friend.”

The tone deaf bodyguard of all things financially elite has been littering the landscape with this kind of absurdity for months. He drops diamonds at the feet of his opponents so let’s start scooping, make a little fine jewelry perhaps.

First the centerpiece in this tiara, “Corporations are people my friend.” Romney shared this gem at an event sponsored by the Des Moines Register during his successful run in the Iowa Caucus. His follow up and explanation suggested either a blunt condescension regarding the intellect of his listeners or a painful lack of mental faculty on his own part, “Everything corporations earn goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” A heckler responded immediately, “It goes in their pockets!”. The GOP front runner then leaned in, a clear gleam in his eye, “Whose pockets? They’re human beings my friend.” Even the most deductively challenged observer can sidestep the grade school logic that because corporations are operated by people (large groups of people in fact) that the entities themselves are somehow individual sentient beings. Romney’s implication as documented on the video is clearly that the trickle up nature of the corporate cash stream away from labor and towards executive compensation is somehow acceptable because the recipients are people. Who exactly, Oh sergeant at Arms do you think you’re talking to?

On to the smaller stones. We’ll wrap them around the above centerpiece. During ABC’s entry into the marathon of Republican Presidential debates (back when consummate mouth breather and Brokeback Mountain fashion devotee Rick Perry was still considered a threat) Romney challenged the Texan to a $10,000 bet regarding the veracity Perry’s claim that Romney had supported health care mandates in his book. I’ll keep this brief and salute the Sergeant’s audacity in attempting to wager $10,000 on national television while running to be the chief representative of a country where that princely sum represents 20% of the median household income for the year.

A nice highlight from a few months earlier occurred when the former Massachusetts Governor told a group of unemployed voters in Florida, “I’m also unemployed… but I have my eye on a certain job.” Cue the uncomfortable courtesy laughter. The reported net worth of this well coifed portrait of empathy is 202 million dollars. Ouch.

For the final setting in our stunning little bobble let’s go with this up and coming son of Oligarchy’s precious, “I like being able to fire people.” This one works because no amount of back-pedalling or contextual adjustment will spare Mitt the resentment such a blindly insensitive and media clumsy dollop of verbal drool is going to engender. The man has made it clear to a nation populated by a public reeling under a crippled economy and living in fear of further deprivation and desperation that he is clearly not their guy.

We ride.

With the Cordray Appointment, Obama Hits the Trenches.

Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:01:21 -0500

In what his opponents have called an “unprecedented power grab” President Barack Obama has used the power of the recess appointment to install former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The CFPB is an agency whose formation was approved and passed into law along with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms in 2010 but cannot operate fully or exercise its full authority without an appointed director. With this fact in mind Congressional Republicans have effectively blocked Cordray’s confirmation since his name was put forth in July of this year.

Let’s examine the implications. At its core the refusal to even allow the appointment of a director to the CFPB to come to a vote represents selective enforcement of the law of the land. It allows an agency already formed and approved by the existing machinations of representative democracy to sit hamstrung based on ideological preference. This juvenile act of sabotage is best described as the organized kicking and screaming of a legislative sore loser.

More heinously it looks the American consumer in the eye and states that the obstructionist stance of the current Republican Congress extends directly to the day to day business of surviving in the shrinking American middle class. As stated in its government website the core functions of the CFPB are as follows:

Conduct rule-making, supervision, and enforcement for Federal consumer financial protection laws
Restrict unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices
Take consumer complaints
Promote financial education
Research consumer behavior
Monitor financial markets for new risks to consumers
Enforce laws that outlaw discrimination and other unfair treatment in consumer finance

To put it simply, the CPFB was created to further specify and codify the practices that had led to the catastrophic economic events of 2008 and reign them in. It was an action that perfectly illustrates the frontline in the battle between those who recognize the need to create and enforce legislation to regulate a lending industry and banking system that is unsustainably predatory, and those who believe that a reshaping of the vocabulary and a reframing of history that depends on collective amnesia regarding the legislative history of the Bush years will somehow be anything other than deadly to the economic well-being of the country.

While Obama declared, “I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans.” Republicans have labeled the recess appointment an egregious abuse of power. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, ‘The President has arrogantly attempted to circumvent the American people.” GOP Presidential front runner and beneficiary of millions in anonymous campaign contributions via his ostensibly non-affiliated super PAC, Mitt Romney has dubbed the move akin to “the worst kind of Chicago politics.”

Understand American voter that the hair they split is the use of the recess appointment, an often employed political maneuver used in response to the filibuster and other outdated mechanisms of obstruction. The implication is that in appointing a director to an agency already receiving taxpayer funding but blocked from providing the full benefits of its service, the President has somehow gone back room with his politics. They reach for the technicality that it has been decades since an appointment was made during a recess less than three days old. They threaten a legal challenge based on this pretext despite the fact that the last President to employ the tactic was a little known and seldom revered Republican named Teddy Roosevelt.

A recess appointment is never ideal, it is not the product of diplomacy but trench warfare. As such it is the big stick that sits so well with the speak softly end of that thought. Furthermore it is Obama’s 29^th such appointment in reaction to the stonewall tactics of the current congress (George W. Bush had made 171 such appointments by the way). It’s hard not to see this as a disappointing evolution in the capital, but also a necessary show of strength by the White House in a year when the politics of deception and entrenched corporate interests are being heralded as the exact opposite and the exact practices that lead to financial ruin are being repackaged and represented as something new.

Sons of Oligarchy: Frank Luntz Seizes the Gavel.

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:12:48 -0500

Frank Luntz, crafting the message for America's financial elite

In a few short days 2012 shall be upon us. The election year will be official and the real fight for the interests of the financially disenfranchised begins. Believe what you will about the camps, the strikes, the petitions and all of the other truly glorious symbols of widespread discontent in America today. The ballot box is where the pendulum of power might swing back towards the people.

Into the upcoming fray we step, the activists, the journalists, the politicians themselves and of course the mechanics of spin. Taking to the proverbial road this year will be the framers of message and meaning. Among this hell raising tribe dedicated to mangling the truth and obfuscating reality none holds more sway than a 49 year old pollster and Fox News mouth piece named Frank Luntz. He sits at the head of the table when it comes to crafting message for the defenders of the financial elite and he pounds the gavel mighty hard.

Few individuals have lorded such a powerful and toxic influence over the American lexicon, maybe none. Consider this, it was Frank Luntz who gave the world “climate change” instead of “global warming", “energy exploration” instead of “off shore drilling”, and “death tax” instead of “estate tax”.

It is with this in mind that Point Nine Nine turns today’s focus to this Son of Oligarchy to share with our readers his message directives regarding pushback against the so-called 99% movement and the growing populist outrage that threatens to knock the American economy and our system of representative democracy at least slightly back in line.

At a meeting of Republican Governors in Florida earlier this month Luntz offered the following marching orders to the defenders of the status quo:

1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’ “I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market. The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of Wall Street we’ve got a problem.”

2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’ “If you talk about raising taxes on the rich, the public responds favorably. If you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no.”

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’ “They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”

4. Don’t talk about ‘jobs.’ Talk about ‘careers.’ “Everyone in this room talks about ‘jobs,’” Luntz said. “Watch this.” He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a “job.” Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a “career.” Almost every hand was raised. ”So why are we talking about jobs?”

5. Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’ “It’s not about ‘government spending.’ It’s about ‘waste.’ That’s what makes people angry.”

6. Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’ “If you talk about ‘compromise,’ they’ll say you’re selling out. Your side doesn’t want you to ‘compromise.’ What you use in that to replace it with is ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you’re selling out those principles.”

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’ “First off, here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ . . . ‘I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.”

8. Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’ “Use the phrases ‘small business owners’ and ‘job creators’ instead of ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘innovators.’

9. Don’t ever ask anyone to ‘sacrifice.’ “There isn’t an American today in November of 2011 who doesn’t think they’ve already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to ‘sacrifice,’ they’re going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.”

10. Always blame Washington. “Tell them, ‘You shouldn’t be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it’s the policies over the past few years that have created this problem.’”

Election time is coming America. If we ignore the shameless manipulation of our understanding and perception of the challenges that face us all and the legislation that can either serve to restore balance or seal our further fall, then our country and our future belongs to men like Mr. Frank Luntz.

Occupy the Courts? Now That's What I'm Talking About.

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:12:35 -0500

Clarence Thomas, one of five justices who ruled in favor of so-called corporate personhood

“Occupy the Courts’ is a phrase, a concept, a suggestion that has bounced around within the uprising that has come to be called the 99% movement almost since its inception. For some it has been a response to the constant call for specificity and focus, an acknowledgement that much of what has created such hideous income disparity in this country is based on laws that have to change. For others Occupy the Courts has been a notion forwarded to suggest class action suits in reaction to police brutality and violation of First Amendment rights within the Occupy movement.

On November 1^st progressive author and radio host Thom Hartmann suggested via online video that the Occupiers focus on federal courthouses and on the little known right wing Federalist Society of whom 5 of the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are members. During the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday this year noted academic, activist and philosopher Dr. Cornel West was arrested during protests on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C..

Earlier this month the activist organization Move to Amend cited Dr. West’s example when it announced its intention to organize a national day of protest at federal courthouses throughout the country on January 20^th, 2012. The name of these protests? Occupy the Courts. In the days since this announcement over 100 like-minded organizations have either endorsed, partnered with, or begun their own efforts in support of this planned day of protest.

On a personal level as a former Occupy committee member and an ongoing organizer at Point Nine Nine, I have always stressed the notion that the courts, or more specifically the laws governing our elections are where the battle lines are drawn. Essentially the whole ball of wax is the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Committee.

Most of those likely to be reading these words are familiar with the implications of this case. We grasp that at its core the Citizens United ruling is a cornerstone of the monstrosity that is the notion of Corporate Personhood. In truth it is simply the corporate lobby’s most powerful instrument. It is built on a foundation that teeters precariously on a twisted mis-statement of the intentions of the 14th Amendment and a choice by a small state court to act on the notion that the theory of natural and non-natural persons would automatically be carried over from British common law.

What came as a shock to me and perhaps would shock other concerned parties were recent polls that showed more than two thirds of Americans had no idea what Citizens United was at all, let alone the shaky foundations behind the ruling. I shuddered to learn that the court decision which most influences the electoral process and thus the policy making that governs their everyday lives sits in the collective blind spot of most Americans. With that knowledge in hand I know where my own creative energies and the organizational and communication capacities of my organization are best applied. With that understanding of widespread public naiveté I know what comes next for those determined to right the ship and I ask… what better action is available in the service of our democracy and the education of our fellow citizens than to Occupy the Courts?

Wall St. on the Waterfront: Scenes from the Port of Oakland

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:12:15 -0500

The picture mail started hitting my cell at a few minutes before 6am. I recognized the number and I knew what it meant. Ben Sizemore had gone down to blockade the Port of Oakland and his pictures would be headed my way for hours to come.

Up and down the west coast members of the Occupy movement had set aside Monday, Dec. 12^thas the day to ‘Occupy Wall Street on the Waterfront’. As has been the case throughout the evolution of the Occupy movement the Oakland protests were among the best attended and most radical in character. While the debate will rage for days to follow whether or not the waterfront shutdowns clearly serve the interests of dock workers and truck drivers to a sufficient degree to justify the potential loss of a day’s wages, the dedication, courage and remarkable level of organization exhibited in Oakland continue to draw the attention of the national press and thus further a debate crucial to the future of a nation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment