The Hypocrisy of NY1 Cable News:
From an editorial yesterday in NY1 news, "a division of" Time Warner, who contributed $101,000 to Sen. Clinton's campaign this year:
"Clinton has been attacked by some voters and liberal bloggers for not calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And like Lieberman, she faces a similar anti-war opponent in her Democratic primary.
Jonathan Tasini is trying to gain attention for his push to end the war in Iraq. But unlike Lamont, Tasini has low name recognition and very little money in the bank.
At this point he's not a threat to Clinton, but given her full campaign schedule, it's clear she's thinking about him."
- Michael Scotto
NY1 news
Low name recognition? It's NY1 itself who is fixing, controlling and censoring the debate !! NY1 news has set the conditions for the debate against Sen. Clinton it is producing on August 22: THE RICH NEED ONLY APPLY
RICH MEDIA, POOR DEMOCRACY
by Robert McChesney
The New Press, 1999
... U.S. democracy is in a decrepit state - exemplified by a depoliticization that would make a tyrant envious, and the corporate commercial media system is an important factor though not the only or even the most important factor, in understanding how this sorry state came to be.
The corporate media cement a system whereby the wealthy and powerful few make the most important decisions with virtually no informed public participation. Crucial political issues are barely covered by the corporate media, or else are warped to fit the confines of elite debate, stripping ordinary citizens of the tools they need to be informed, active participants in a democracy.
Moreover, the media system is not only closely linked to the ideological dictates of the business-run society, it is also an integral element of the economy. Hence, for those who regard inequality and untrammeled commercialism as undermining the requirements of a democratic society, media reform must be on the political agenda.
A debate between Democratic Senatorial candidates is scheduled for August 22 to be held at Pace University and produced by NY1 cable TV. But NY1 has shut out Clinton's only challenger by setting the conditions for those who can take part: only those candidates who have or have spent $500,000. So, instead of a debate, as advertised, NY1 will televise Clinton's campaign speech. No surprise, as Time Warner, NY1's owner, has invested $101,000 in Sen. Clinton's campaign this year. Clinton's only challenger, Jonathan Tasini is on the ballot, has 13% voter support. He has, however, only $150,000 in the campaign funds. THE RICH NEED ONLY APPLY.
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE !! THAT JUST AIN'T LEGAL !!
Is NY1 in violation of 1934 Communications Act?
RALPH NADER: I think the Time Warner Corporation should be in trouble under the 1934 Communications Act. I know that Time Warner owns over-the-air radio and TV stations, and this -- NY1 is a cable, Amy. Is it a cable station?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, NY1 is cable in New York.
RALPH NADER: So, overall, this company's responsible, under the 1934 Communications Act, "to perform in the public interest, necessity and convenience." Those are the words in the act. And for this corporation, whose executives are giving to Hillary Rodham Clinton money, to have a means test to say that Jonathan Tasini has to raise $500,000 -- do you know that you have to raise only one-third of that running for president in order to qualify for matching funds under the federal law? And so, they put the bar very high. They should have no right as a corporation, which is not a human being, not a person, to determine that kind of access.
THE LAWUnder a provision of the 1934 Communications Act, if a broadcast station provides time for one political candidate, it must do so for his or her opponents. This provision -- Section 315 of the law -- is known as the Equal Time rule. It states: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
PROTEST NY1's CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL DEBATE
NY1 has declared Jonathan Tasini ineligible to participate in their debate series at Pace University because he does not meet their "threshold" of $500,000 in campaign funds either raised or spent. He does meet their other criteria, polling at 5% or better. (We were at 13% in the most recent Marist poll.)
Call or e-mail: Robert Hardt - Director of Politics, NY1, 212-379-3330 or Robert.Hardt@ny1news.com
And, then, pass the information on. Every voter, even those who don't support our campaign, should care about the ability of media power-brokers to censor debate in our country.
What is it that Jonathan Tasini is not being allowed to say?
Jonathan speaks on the steps of City Hall flanked by supporters
August 10, 2006
The movement to take back the Democratic Party from the Democratic Leadership Council and the leaders of the party who lead us to defeat every election has been underway for a number of years. The DLC has not only failed the party, it has failed the people of this country by advocating policies that have lead to death and destruction in the world, an out-of-control corporate world populated by leaders whose personal greed has destroyed companies and, at times, threatened sectors of the country with instability, and a widening gap between rich and poor.
Touching the Third Rail in New York Politics
There are some things you're just not allowed to say, and some topics you're just not allowed to broach.
1. Do not challenge Sen. Clinton.
2. Do not challenge AIPAC Democrats. Do not question US military support of Israel, and support for Israel's "foreign policy."
3. Do not question or challenge Israel's right to defend itself, in whatever measure Israel deems proportionate. Do not question or challenge Israel's right to occupy Palestine, or to destroy, invade and occupy Lebanon.
3. Although you may be Democrat, this is your party line:
Here is the party line:
In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America."
Jonathan Tasini has challenged this position.
WARNING !! THIRD RAIL !! DO NOT TOUCH THE THIRD RAIL !!
In the past few days, I've touched the "third rail" of politics in New York: the Israel-Palestine conflict, the dreadful occupation and the never-ending violence that is spinning out of control, in large part because the United States--and politicians like Hillary Clinton--continue to blindly pursue a one-sided policy in the Palestinian-Israel conflict, a policy that is causing more death and sorrow for civilians on all sides of the conflict and, ironically, is hurting the security of Israel.
Touching The Third Rail: Israel and New York Politics
by Jonathan Tasini
Wed Jul 26, 2006
"At the heart of the conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike most American politicians running for public office who express their position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, my views on the issue come from a deep, personal connection and experience.
My father was born in Palestine and fought in the Israeli underground. I lived in Israel for seven years, during which I was involved, as a teen-ager and young man, in the fledgling peace movement
So, it is absolutely clear to me that only a two-state solution will end the violence that has taken so many Palestinian and Israeli lives--and bring stability and peace to the Middle East.
I unequivocally support the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, consequently ending Israeli occupation of these areas because such a solution is the only way to ensure Israeli security. The final peace settlement has to accommodate Israel's security requirements but it also has to ensure a viable, thriving, independent Palestinian State which has territorial contiguity and is not broken into cantons."
Jonathan Tasini on the Israeli war on Lebanon:
I think this is a massive high-tech terror war by the Israeli government against an innocent Lebanese people and their livelihood and infrastructure. Hezbollah was engaged in a number of skirmishes with the Israeli Army over the last six years. Israel, of course, violated the Lebanese border far more, airily and navally and on land, than Hezbollah did. But that lethal skirmish was turned into a catastrophic war by the Israeli government against the innocent, defenseless people of Lebanon, in three stages of state terrorism.
First, direct strikes against residential areas, against wheat silos, against highways, water systems, power stations, hospitals, schools, the vehicles fleeing with refugees. We've seen it all on TV.
The second stage of Israeli state terrorism is deliberately impeding the rescue of the injured people, bombing, for example, ambulances on their way to the hospital, cutting off roads, preventing medical supplies and hospital workers from reaching the terrified injured in the remnants of the bleeding families. We saw Doctors Without Borders trying to manually convey across the Litani River, after the last bridge was destroyed, medical supplies.
And the third stage of Israeli state terrorism is direct strikes against rescue workers or injured people; for example, hitting at hospitals, ambulances, medical supplies, etc. You know, these are not just impeding rescue by blockading the whole country, which has now only six days left of fuel, including hospitals, but also going after rescue operations.
So I would recommend, in addition to a ceasefire, in addition to withdrawal of combatants, in addition to an international peace force, I would recommend an immediate international rescue operation, because thousands of people are going to die and get sick and get injured from the consequences of what has already been done in Lebanon in the blockade of any entry of supplies
In US politics, do not use "Israel" and "State Terrorism" in one sentence. This is the third rail. "Appalling," said Sen. Clinton.
Tasini has challenged Sen. Clinton:
"My opponent is getting much attention for her criticism of Donald Rumsfeld yesterday. But it's just more bluster from Sen. Clinton. If you're a Senator who voted to authorize the invasion, who has continually supported the war and occupation, has continually voted for war funding, has continually undercut fellow Congressional Democrats (like John Murtha) when they move to extricate our country from the Iraq disaster, then she should not be allowed to get away with pointing fingers at others."
Hillary Clinton's primary opponent lashed out at the senator over Israel yesterday, blaming the deaths of 37 children in Qana on her refusal to push for a ceasefire.
"She, and a broad segment of our political leadership, bear responsibility for the deaths ofthese children," Democrat Jonathan Tasini said in a statement. The youngsters were among about 60 civilians killed in Israel's weekend strike on the southern Lebanese town of Qana.
"Rather than call for restraint, Hillary Clinton stopped just short of declaring, 'Let the bombs fall.'"
Author Barbara Eirenrich on Jonathan Tasini:
""When you have to have half a million dollars to tell people what you stand for, then we're not talking about democracy anymore, we're talking about plutocracy.""
"Hillary Clinton is not telling the truth to the voters of New York. In recent days, Hillary Clinton is performing a quick makeover and cover-up act. And I think it's clear why. She does not want to be dragged down by the new political pariah of the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman.
On the war and on other significant issues, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are ideological soulmates. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman voted for this immoral war. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman continued to support the war and the occupation that have killed 2,600 of our men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have guaranteed every New Yorker that they will pay more in taxes or suffer cuts in valuable social programs because of their vote for a war that will cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman both support so-called "free trade." They both believe NAFTA was a good thing--a policy which has cost our state thousands of good-paying, unionized jobs. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are both major recipients of money from corporate interests. Actually, my opponent outstrips even Lieberman in the amount of money she has pocketed from lobbyists, ranking only behind Rick Santorum for that dubious honor. I agree with Ned Lamont that there are too many lobbyists in Washington--and Hillary Clinton is apparently their best friend."
Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of
Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War Blood Rites takes us on an original journey from the elaborate human sacrifices of the ancient world to the carnage and holocaust of twentieth-century "total war." Brilliant in conception, rich in scope, Blood Rites is a monumental work that will transform our understanding of the greatest single threat to human life.
Jonathan Tasini has challenged Sen. Clinton's "war-chest"
The Murdoch-Clinton Alliance
Submitted by Jonathan Tasini on May 9, 2006 - 7:57am.
It's hard to find a media outlet that has done more damage than FOX to our country and to the principles that make us proud to be Democrats. FOX has been a willing mouthpiece for the Administration, especially on the issue of the war in Iraq. It has carried on a consistent assault on basic progressive ideas, attacking social security, fair treatment of workers, immigrants, gays and lesbian rights...the list goes on.
So, it must be disturbing for New York voters to hear about this reported in today's issue of the Financial Times: "Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton's initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign."
The Third Rail in Progressive Democratic Politics
Jonathan Tasini, while congratulating Ned Lamont for his win in Connecticut, differs from Lamont on some key issues. Yesterday Tasini was misquoted, and taken out of context. Here is the full context of Tasini's remarks on Lamont and the Progressive Democratic platform:
From the Brian Lehrer television program August 10:
Brian Lehrer: Lamont has gone to great lengths to portray himself as a moderate Democrat, He got endorsed by the New York Times as a moderate Democrat. How would you describe yourself in those terms?
Jonathan Tasini: Well you know, I am proud to call myself a progressive. But beyond the labels moderate/progressive, look at what I'm running about. I believe that what I've been saying in this primary from the very beginning is that what we represent is what a majority of Americans feel, and certainly what a majority of Americans feel; we want an end to this illegal, immoral war.
Hillary Clinton has supported the war and continues to support the war. We want single payer health insurance; Medicare for all is what I call it. Hillary Clinton has never been for single payer health insurance. I want to check abusive corporate power. Hillary Clinton gets money from people like Rupert Murdoch, she sat on the board of Wal-Mart for six years. She supports so called free trade like NAFTA. She just voted again for a free trade agreement with Oman which will cost Americans thousands of jobs. I'm against that kind of so-called free trade. So there are great differences between myself and the Senator.
Brian Lehrer quotes Ned Lamont:
Ned Lamont: "I haven't gotten involved in that race at all but I would say that, you know, Hillary Clinton, while she did support the invasion of Iraq, she was there for the Reed-Levin amendment in the US Congress, the one that was una-almost unanimously supported by Democrats that said, `It's time for us to change course, it's time for us to start bringing our troops home. She's a member of the Democratic team, she doesn't go out of her way to undermine Democrats on that issue or otherwise so I wouldn't be inclined to endorse her opponent."
(Lamont quote from earlier interview)
Brian Lehrer: Ouch.
Jonathan Tasini: Well it's unfortunate, I have a different view. I believe that progressive Democrats should endorse and support each other. And I frankly differ with Ned Lamont. You know let's be honest, Ned Lamont is not a progressive Democrat. Ned Lamont's position on war has shifted a number of times, and in a certain way Joe Lieberman was right. The Reid-Levin Amendment that he mentioned, I thought was an appalling amendment, it gave no particular deadline for withdrawal. The Kerry Amendment which was the other Amendment which Democrats would not support, including Hillary Clinton, would have left our troops there another whole year and that was considered, if you will, the radical amendment. I think that keeping the troops there another year, and even there are some loopholes there, keeping our troops there year, given the violence, is insane.
...
Tasini: I think if you look, and again I'm glad that Ned Lamont, let me be very clear- I think you can say two things; I think it's great that Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman was, certainly embraced the Republicans, the war, he was a corporatist, it's good that he lost.
At the same time Ned Lamont's position on the war did shift and I don't see his position as being the same as mine. Which is legitimate, we can debate that I am for the immediate safe withdrawal of the troops, it's the position of Jim Mc Govern, Congressman from Massachusetts, and replacing the troops with an international security force.
Every single day that the United States military stays there and occupies Iraq is another day the violence continues, another day we lose troops, are killed, Iraqis are killed, and the country can not rebuild itself
You may love Jonathan Tasini, or you may dislike him. You may consider his campaign "Quixotic." But no matter what shade of Democrat you are, progressive, centrist or conservative, do not allow Sen. Clinton to go uncontested and unchallenged in the New York senatorial election. Do not give Sen. Clinton "carte blanche" on the issue of war on Iraq, or Israel's war on Lebanon. Support Clean Elections
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. Edward Murrow