REVIEW: Independence and Talk Talk About the Talk of Talking Heads

Review

Talk/Talk: Fred Newman and Jackie Salit Making (Non) Sense of an Irrational World

Edited by John Opdyke

Review by Todd Neff

I once covered local politics as a newspaper reporter in Boulder, Colorado. I felt I understood Democrats. Broadly speaking, they seemed to make decisions based on some semblance of what my five senses construed as reality, with a degree of humility, and with at least some empathy for the nonrich, not-environmentally destructive, nonfundamentalist masses. I thought I understood modern Republicans, a self-certain lot who seemed to make decisions unburdened by such empathy, based on a worldview so pixilated as to seem otherworldly.

I had no clue about independents. I mean, an independence movement seemed inimical to the idea of a movement in the first place. Michael Bloomberg’s rationality notwithstanding, a bunch of independent ideas assembled into a movement would regurgitate a mess of helter-skelter policy, right? The book Talk/Talk has helped set me straight.

Talk/Talk is a very different concoction, as books go. It’s a compilation of talking heads talking about the talk of talking heads they (that is, the talking heads featured in Talk/Talk) watched on Sunday TV talk shows. Independence movement leaders Jacqueline Salit and Fred Newman are the stars of this 170-page show, which proceeds in dialogue format, as in:

Newman: What we’ve said before and will say again: that independents are able to shape positions which come closer to where the people are. Democrats and Republicans who are party loyalists can’t easily do that. They can’t do that because their loyalty is fundamentally party loyalty.

That’s on page 45, the beginning of Salit and Newman’s discourse on “This Week with George Stephanopolous” of Sunday, July 8, 2007. The shows they watch change, and the dates and topics leap back and forth with pleasant randomness. There is no central message, no polemic. You realize, as you read through conversations on topics as diverse as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the applicability of Henry Kissinger’s power politics to the modern world, that being independent is mostly about thinking, and that Salit and Newman are well practiced at the art.

Closing the book, I had a sense that, perhaps, the independence movement is actually about policy-making on a rational basis, based on a will to deliver the greatest good for the citizenry – and not, as is the case with today’s political parties, warped by the pressures of self-serving lobbies from the left or right.

I’ll close with Newman’s words, spoken after a PBS News Hour on December 14, 2008. In the wake of the catastrophe in northern Japan and in the face of our own unfolding policy disaster courtesy of party politics, they resonate.

“There is something fundamentally tragic about our lives, all our lives. . . We’re up against forces which we’re thought to be smarter than and more powerful than, but which, in fact, we’re not smarter or more powerful than at all,” Newman said. “That’s our tragedy. We, meaning human beings, believe we are supposed to be in control – of nature, of the world. But we’re not, as we’re discovering. Can we do things better? Yes. Do we? Sometimes.”

Todd Neff is a Denver journalist and author of “From Jars to the Stars: How Ball Came to Build a Comet-Hunting Machine.”

Talk/Talk: Making (Non) Sense of an Irrational World

Authored by Fred Newman, Jackie Salit
Introduction by Omar H Ali
Edited by John Opdycke
For many years, Fred Newman and Jacqueline Salit-two leading activists and intellectuals within the independent political movement-have met on the weekends to have coffee and watch political talk and interview shows. They watch Charlie Rose, Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, This Week with George Stephanopoulos (now Christiane Amanpour), The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, and other shows. After they watch them, they have a conversation. In early 2005, they began transcribing these conversations and distributing them to their friends and followers. Over the years, their "talk about the talk"-hence the name Talk/Talk-developed into a popular weekly missive that is presently distributed via e-mail to tens of thousands of readers worldwide. Making (Non) Sense of an Irrational World is a compilation of some of their most popular and thought provoking discussions from the last five years.


Hankster recommended! Independents and progressives of all stripes should read this book. Several times!

Talk Talk: McChrystal: He'll Always Have Paris

Sunday, June 26, 2010

Talk/Talk will be off for month of July and resume in August.   Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, June 27, 2010 after watching selections from "PBS NewsHour, "The Charlie Rose Show," "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week." Newman: Everyone did what they did knowing that it would probably have these consequences. And it did have these consequences. So, it's sort of an exercise in utter predictability. Salit: I appreciate that because this whole affair does have that quality to it. On one hand, it's presented as this great drama, and it is. In American history, it is dramatic when a president relieves a general of a command in the middle of a war. It doesn't happen that often. But when it happens, it is a dramatic event. And, at the same time, as you say, this one does have a quality of everything that happened along the way seeming to be very predictable. I feel like someone's already writing a script for a Hollywood movie called "McChrystal" and they've already cast it. Maybe Bruce Willis is going to play McChrystal. Newman: Well, it might seem like a movie because it's about the military. Military movies are very popular for a reason. Salit: Which is? Newman: It's all about doing the right thing. Read Talk/Talk in its entirety here. Rolling Stone's "The Runaway General" by Michael Hastings here.

Talk Talk with Fred Newman and Jackie Salit: Determinism Run Amok

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, May 30, 2010 after watching selections from "Hardball with Chris Matthews," "PBS NewsHour," "This Week" and "The McLaughlin Group."

Salit: I know. These terrible things happen. Everybody's very upset about this. And Axelrod says 'We're working on a solution. We've mobilized all the great scientists from everywhere in the world.

Newman: That's at least a lie, but surely an exaggeration.

Salit: OK, at a minimum, we've mobilized some Nobel scientists. And, he says, 'We're working on this and we haven't gotten to the solution yet.

Newman: Right. And Matthews, in his typical provocative and sometimes dumb way says: 'What happens if you don't find one?

Salit: And the answer is?

Newman: Then, we'll fail.

Salit: We'll fail, yes.

Newman: People have failed before.

Read Talk/Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk with Fred Newman and Jackie Salit May 16: American as Apple Pie

AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE    Sunday, May 16, 2010

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, May 16, 2010 after watching selections from "The Charlie Rose Show," "PBS NewsHour" and NY1's "Inside City Hall." Salit: I'm sure you're right about that. Alright, the Supreme Court, the nomination of Elena Kagan. Newman: Yes. Salit: The left is disappointed, not that they're not going to support Kagan, but the left is disappointed because they really want a "full-throated left liberal" justice on the Court to be a counter-balance to Scalia. And Kagan is not that. Newman: Well, put another way, the left is disappointed because the massive turnout that made Obama the president is not left-wing. Salit: Yes. Newman: It's center-left. And they're going to pout as long as that's the case, but Obama's appointments will reflect that. That's who he is. Is he a leftist? Yes. Is he pro-socialist? Yes. Does he have the same history and ideological hard drive as the American far left? No. At least not the part that's most vocal. So, they're unhappy about that. What can I tell you. They're unhappy.   Read Talk/Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk with Fred Newman and Jackie Salit: God, Dodd and Reform

I decided to publish the entire weekly Talk Talk with public philosopher and independent strategist Fred Newman, and CUIP president and NYC Bloomberg Independence Party campaign manager Jackie Salit this week. You can also SUBSCRIBE  to the weekly post.... In any case, please read on:

GOD, DODD AND REFORM

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, March 21, 2010 after watching selections from “The Charlie Rose Show,” “PBS NewsHour” and “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Salit: Healthcare, insurance companies, Wall Street…

Newman: Do you know what I was thankful for?

Salit: What?

Newman: That God gave us only 26 letters in the alphabet.

Salit: There’s a lot of “wordage” out there, certainly, and it’s all about regulatory reform. But there’s no talk about why it is that we have so many things that need to be regulated.

Newman: There is a reason.

Salit: And it is?

Newman: The best thing I’ve ever read on this was by Robert Reich, the economist, who pointed out that we have an entirely legalistic lawyer-controlled political culture where no sooner do they pass a law to regulate something, than every company’s board of directors races out of the room, hires a team of lawyers, and comes up with a way to get around those regulations. It takes them about 10 minutes. That’s the world we’re living in. Where business gets reined in for some kind of unscrupulous practice, and in short order they have a counter to it.

Salit: We sure saw that in Senator Chris Dodd’s presentation this week about the Senate Banking Committee’s proposed financial regulatory reform. It’s so interesting. The whole push was that we have to have some kind of independent body that’s going to protect consumers from manipulative and usurious lending practices by the banks. But that falls by the wayside…

Newman: …in about a second…

Salit: …in a second, exactly.

Newman: Actually, here’s what happens. The reformers bring in their proposal. Then everyone in the room laughs hysterically. And they don’t even bother to take a vote. Let’s move on now.

Salit: Let’s move on to which branch of the government, which bureaucracy, which interest group is going to get control of this thing because it is all about who’s going to control the oversight. They want to make sure the “overseeing” doesn’t get out of hand.

Newman: And they have a clerk who keeps a list of who got the last oversight control.

Salit: So they know whose turn it is.

Newman: Exactly.

Salit: Michael Lewis, who wrote “The Big Short,” said in an interview with Charlie Rose ‘Wall Street provides a financial service. It’s supposed to allocate capital. It’s not supposed to destroy wealth or misallocate capital. But, in this situation, they destroyed wealth and they misallocated capital and they’re still being paid huge amounts of money.’

Newman: I agree with that only to this extent: I don’t know why the formulation is “and they’re still.” Why wouldn’t they be “still?” That’s exactly what they’re paid to do.

Salit: He was saying that what they should be paid to do is to allocate capital properly.

Newman: I got you. But properly and improperly are virtually indistinguishable. That’s the explanation of why they got huge bonuses even though they didn’t do their job, according to Lewis. It’s not as if they didn’t allocate capital. They did. It’s not like being a plumber, where if you don’t get the toilet to flush, you don’t get paid. The whole system as it exists is too big to regulate.

Salit: Never mind too big to fail.

Newman: Exactly. It’s too big to regulate. It’s just too big and too complex so that, no matter what happens, they get their bucks. And, the economy is still stumbling along.

Salit: Things are happening. Presumably the stimulus money is getting places and the banking system was stabilized and the job loss has been stemmed. It’s not clear though what the relationship would be between that happening and a new kind of regulatory framework. Everybody’s saying that we can’t set up regulations that prevent some kind of disaster from happening.

Newman: That’s the big lie.

Salit: Because?

Newman: In the most pragmatic sense of the word, they can set up such regulations. They have set them up. It’s what we’re doing now. This is the worst disaster since…

Salit: …the Great Depression…

Newman: …since the times of Cleopatra, or whatever era you might fill in there. And they are dealing with it. So what’s the problem? It might be boring. It might be tedious. It might be incomprehensible. It might be all kinds of things. But that’s how the system works. You have the same old people creating regulations which are, roughly speaking, if you look at the totality of them, equivalent to the regulations that existed last time.

Salit: Hence the Consumer Protection Agency is housed at the Federal Reserve.

Newman: Right, because now it’s their turn.

Salit: So nothing new is happening up there, so to speak.

Newman: That’s my view. It’s ironic, isn’t it? Because the left abstractions, the Marxist abstractions which amount to, It’s always the same under capitalism, and to which people always respond by saying, Oh, you cynics. It’s more complex than that, are actually accurate. It’s not more complex. It is the same old, same old…all the time. Apparently you just have to pay your dues and go through 10 cycles of this before you’re allowed to say that.

Salit: What follows from that?

Newman: Look, from our vantage point, no one’s going to go out and make a revolution in the traditional 19th century sense of that word. But if you have the circumstances, like in the last presidential election where an interesting, although probably unpredictable, conjuncture of things occurred – some highly unusual, explosive, upending things can happen. Some people saw that conjuncture and took advantage of that. That made it possible to elect an African American president. Forget what his views are. Just that he’s African American is something of a revolution. But once that revolution is done, he goes to Washington to produce relatively modest changes, and the Republican Party has a sufficiently strong base – like half the country – so that it can muck things up.

What’s the probability of some consecutive circumstances of the kind which allowed the masses of people to actually participate in something in a mildly radical way? Probability? Zero. What’s the probability of one such conjuncture being sufficiently radical to produce changes large enough to, in turn, produce other changes? Don’t know. That’s what you’re gambling on by investing in the independent political movement. That’s what we’re gambling on. Those are the odds of our bet. Well, I’m content with that. I’m still here. You’re content with it. You’re still here. Are we doing some good stuff along the way? Yes. And that’s good, too, because the likelihood is that’s what we’ll, in fact, accomplish. Does that contribute to these other, larger shifts? Impossible to tell. Is it worth doing in its own right? Yes.

What does this all add up to? I’d say postmodernism is right. This is what it looks like. This is the very stuff we’re trying to figure out a way to talk about because there is no obvious way to talk about it. What do you do with that? Some people turn to God. Some people become super nasty. But everything loses meaning. Then, what do you do with a meaningless world? I don’t know. I like what we’re doing in a meaningless world. We’re trying to do something worthwhile to help people who always get the short end of the stick. That seems like a worthwhile thing to do. And we’re doing it well.

Salit: Have you seen this guy Francis Collins before? He’s the well-known and respected scientist who Charlie Rose interviewed, the author of “The Language of God,” who writes about his belief in God. He says, basically, that science can’t answer the question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Newman: What’s that supposed to mean?

Salit: It could mean that science hasn’t answered that yet, but that’s the argument for God.

Newman: And that’s supposed to be profound?

Salit: I don’t think it’s supposed to be profound. It’s supposed to be a trump card.

Newman: I don’t know about that. How about pointing out that there is something and there is nothing. There’s something when there’s something and there’s nothing when there’s nothing. So the question, by any standard as far as I’m concerned, is profoundly ill-formed. Where did he go to school, this guy?

Salit: Yale.

Newman: Is that right?

Salit: Yes.

Newman: Well, it’s a theological school.

Salit: Even if he didn’t go to the Divinity School.

Newman: I assure you they’re not asking that question at Stanford, nor at Harvard. The real question is: Why are we taking a question effectively constructed by the Yale Divinity School as the least bit serious?

Salit: I went to Sarah Lawrence so I can’t answer that question.

Newman: I would say that you dropped out of Sarah Lawrence, so you have to!

Salit: Exactly. That’s how I answered the question. I dropped out of Sarah Lawrence.

Newman: There you go. I think that’s a good answer to that!

Salit: Thanks, Fred.

You can reach Fred Newman or Jackie Salit at 212-609-2800 or via email at 

The Hankster Live-Blogging Health Care Debate and Congressional Vote

10:45pm EDT - Congress did it -- they passed a bill for health care reform. 219 Dem votes, (34 Dems against) Repubs 178 against and somehow the "independent" is missing...  Quite a hub-bub in our nation's capital....

10:30pm EDT - Pelosi just finished speaking... continued motions and opinions and requests... [who knew there were so many rules to governing the nation?!...] this is a "15 minute vote" (?) not sure what that means.... Commentary by C-Span is trying to explain about passage and failure.... during the next hour or so. Votes needed: 236 for HR 3590 (I think).... Again you can follow live coverage here, and think more about it here, and then around 11pm (EDT) be sure to see Dr. Omar Ali, TMV's Joe Gandelman and Nicole Kurokawa with Don Lemon on CNN...

10:11pm EDT – Just spoke with Joe Gandelman after the CNN taping of independents on the issue of health care reform (Don Lemon) — tune in to CNN at 11pm EDT. Get the independent view point!
10:07pm EDT – Rep John Boehner (R-OH) grandstanding about the House of Representatives being a broken house; gavel “both sides of the house would do well to remember the dignity of the House”
8:12pm EDT — Congressman Dennis Kucinich  statement on healthcare and the American people and the meaning of supporting President Obama.


8:31pm EDT - quietness on the floor of the US House.  Now resume the partisan, more or less socialist-moderate-anti-socialist statements...

8:26pm EDT - HR 3590 HR 4872 - the right to have insurance, end abusive practices by insurance companies, the nightmare ends tonight...

8:24pm EDT - Jim McDermott (D-MO) speaking in favor... Dean Heller (R-NV) against. I'm going to pay attention to what the partisans are saying....

8:12pm EDT -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich statement on healthcare and the American people and the meaning of supporting President Obama.

8:03pm - Joe Gandelman will be a guest on CNN tonight as part of an independent panel hosted by Don Lemon. Just spoke with Dr. Omar Ali - next up on CNN Don Lemon at 7:30pm -- consideration of the expected approval of health care reform, which he called a "historic reform", how can President Obama now turn his attention to reform of the political system itself. Dr. Ali thinks that the American people are becoming more aware of the process itself and the impact of that process on our national policy. Tune in to CNN at 7:30pm EDT


7:50 EDT - John Lewis speak vigorously in support

7:47pm EDT -- Congressman Rangel (D-NY) speaking about his privilege to serve. Oh, that's right, let's have a look at Dennis Kucinich's

7:31pm EDT -- Looking for Don Lemon's CNN independent panel - here's the live CNN channel

6:46 EDT - getting serious now, Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) speaking about this bill... and how health care was cheaper and less partisan in the past... A bi-partisan objective- affordable health care for all...

6:29 EDT - seems the resolution has another 5 minutes to vote. don't really understand the rules of the house, but they seem to be making their way through this....

6:28 EDT - one minute left to discuss....

6:03pm - Just spoke with Dr. Omar Ali - next up on CNN Don Lemon at 7:30pm -- consideration of the expected approval of health care reform, which he called a "historic reform", how can President Obama now turn his attention to reform of the political system itself. Dr. Ali thinks that the American people are becoming more aware of the process itself and the impact of that process on our national policy. Tune in to CNN at 7:30pm EDT Don't miss panelist Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice


5:38: Louise Slaughter votes yes; voice vote no. Roll call vote on the rule proceeding, proposal to suspend the rules. etc... Again, please tune in to C-SPAN and read Jackie Salit/ Fred Newman's Talk Talk on the issue of healthcare and our partisan gridlock....

5:35pm -- Closing remarks by Rep David Dreier (R-CA) starting out with pro-individualist/ anti-democratic solution... "common-sense proposals"... urge to vote no


NOTE: "Our" congressmen/women seem to think that their party registration and possible history of carrying coffee for their superiors equates with democracy. Stay tuned...

ROLLCALL BREAK:  If you haven't yet read Jackie Salit and Fred Newman's Talk Talk "Healthcare: The Final Act" do so while the Dems and Repubs put out their pretty much partisan votes... and watch live C-SPAN coverage here...

5:01pm -- Repubs roll call, saying "ask unanimous support to revise my remarks in regard to this flawed health care bill...

4:57pm -- ongoing bipartisan hack-spout... support/oppose... uhhh would there be any other choice give the 2-party frozen storm?

4:47pm - Phil Gingrey (R-GA) sites vote in 1993

4:46pm -- Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) sites personal family health issues

4:40pm -- So is the deal between Obama and Stupak over abortion the deal-maker?

4:39pm -- Virginia Foxx (R-NC) talking about increased cost and complete take-over of health care system

4:32pm -- Alcee Hastings (D-FL) Count me in as a radical. We must do what we think is morally right.

4:09pm - Rep. Slaughter (D-NY) is now referencing the people who spit at Rep. Barney Frank. She is putting to rest the contention that conservatives have the upper hand... Does Louise Slaughter have a southern accent, or am I crazy? Louise is in favor! Yea!

4:06pm -- Point of order was approved so we will now hear from Congressman Stupak. I have to say I had no idea that Jesse Jackson, Jr. was the speaker of the House. Has been over-mediaed by the Speaker of the Senate...? Louise Slaughter, D-NY of the Rules Committee speaking, again interrupted by Speaker -- lots of "rowdiness" -- being asked to take their conversations outside to the cloakroom. Are we in primary school in the 1800's????

4:05pm -- Stupak about to speak.


3:50 - Politico says Stupak and WH have resolved abortion issue....

3:46pm - That's Jesse Jackson, Jr. at the gavel, now have cut to pro and con protests outside the US Capitol...

********************************************************************************
Against my better judgement (and perhaps the advice of Fred Newman in the recent Talk Talk "Healthcare: The Final Act" with Jackie Salit and Fred Newman) The Hankster will be following the vote today on President Obama's health care reform bill in Congress.

3:14pm - there's a really contentious fight on the floor of the House right now about procedures and the guy who's wielding the gavel is hitting the sound block is Very Busy! You can see live coverage from C-SPAN here. I'm gonna find out who he is, but he has his arms folded tightly across his body for good reason!

Obama, Health Care and the Media: Stop the Presses!

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, March 14, 2010 after watching selections from “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” “The Charlie Rose Show,” “PBS NewsHour,” “On the Record With Greta Van Susteren” and “Meet the Press.” You can subscribe here

...Newman: It’s about whether the president, who seems to be something of a leftist, who controlled both the House and the Senate, could pass what is, by any reasonable account, a center-left bill.


Salit: Yes.

Newman: And that’s a big political issue. Because he should be able to. But it’s questionable whether he will be able to......

.....Salit: Well, my guess is that from this point on, the news coverage is going to resemble what happens at a sporting event. Play by play, and that sort of thing.

Newman: If I was a media person, I’d stop covering this. I’d protest and not cover it anymore, and just say, Decide something already, you’re the Congress. When you decide something, we’ll come back and cover you. Until then, no coverage. That would be principled, I think....

Read more of Talk Talk here

Obama's Health Care Problem: Which Side Are You On Boys?

SEIU prez Andrew Stern is threatening to "go independent" on local races to oppose Dems who oppose Prez Obama's healthcare reform bill. New York is a fusion voting state, which has empowered third parties like the New York Independence Party, Conservative Party and Working Families Party.  Meanwhile, former Dem La Plata County Colorado Commissioner Joelle Riddle didn't threaten -- she went independent for real.

HEALTH CARE, OBAMA AND LABOR

• Health Care, The Final Act (Talk Talk with Fred Newman and Jackie Salit)
• Union Chief Warns He’ll Back Independent Candidates Against Democrats Opposed to Health Care (By STEVEN GREENHOUSE, NY Times/The Caucus)
• Liberals warn Dems on health care (By: Ben Smith and Gabriel Beltrone, Politico)
• SI rep under pressure on health care reform (Richmond County Elections 2010 Examiner, John Signoriello)

COLORADO

• Caucuses picking delegates today (by Garrett Andrews, Durango Herald) And though the herd of Democrats running to replace Joelle Riddle as La Plata County's District 1 Commissioner won't be thinned today, the party might get a better idea of how the candidates will fare at the County Assembly, Walter said. Riddle - who cut ties with the Democratic Party in August 2009 and is suing to have her name listed as an Independent on the November ballot - is slated to appear as a write-in in November. She currently faces a field of four Democrats: Dryside water lawyer Bruce Baizel, south Durango resident Chris Dolphin, former Durango City Councilor Scott Graham and cattleman author Jeff Mannix.

NEW YORK

• Paladino heads for crucial meeting, Hopes to win over Conservative leaders (By Robert J. McCarthy, BUFFALO NEWS POLITICAL REPORTER) The Independence Party, expected to eventually back Democratic Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo for governor, now occupies the critical third line on the ballot — behind the Democrats and Republicans. Occupying the third line is considered extremely beneficial as the state’s “major minor party.”
• Fusion Voting in New York, the Working Families Party & Close Elections (by: DavidNYC, Swing State Project) There are fewer small parties today than in the past, and only three of them matter: the Conservative Party, the Independence Party, and the Working Families Party.
• Panel to revise New York City Charter to host first public meeting this week (By Tom Wrobleski, SI Advance)
• Long's Dilemma (BY ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Daily News/Daily Politics) The Working Families Party, usually allied with the Democrats, still has the US attorney's probe hanging over its head. Ditto for the state Independence Party, which endorsed Eliot Spitzer for governor in 2006 after its founder and patron, Tom Golisano, decided against a fourth statewide wide.

BLOGOSPHERE

• No More Politics as Usual! Get Political News and Views for Independent Voters at PoliticalCentrist.com (Press Release, PoliticalCentrist.com) "Reasonable ideas from reasonable people"
• Exploring The Mood Gap (Hotline)

Talk Talk: Who is Obama in 2012?

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, February 28, 2010 after watching selections from "Hardball with Chris Matthews," "The Charlie Rose Show," "Tavis Smiley" and "Meet the Press."  

Newman: So choosing comprehensive healthcare reform as their dominant cause meant that the partnership, such as it is, between Obama and the Democratic Party, was going to be dominated by the Democratic Party.

Salit: So, it's not that Obama turned the issue over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's that it came from them.

Newman: Yes. I don't know that Obama fully agreed to that part but I don't think he had much choice. The party did win that "internal" fight.

Salit: Yes.

Newman: And now Obama is obliged to lead this fight.

Salit: I'm assuming the Democrats have a Plan B.

Newman: Of course. The Democratic Party are not dumbbells.

Read Talk/Talk in its entirety here.

Broken Government: Independents Speak Out

Don Lemon's CNN interview of Dr. Omar Ali, Joe Gandelman and Nicole Kurokawa aired at 10:30pm Eastern Time Sunday night, the 7pm show having been postponed because of the Chile earthquake coverage. Here's the VIDEO.


Just came across this post from E.J. Dionne "Mindful Partisanship" on The Moderate Voice:

The point is not that Republicans are heartless and Democrats are compassionate. It’s that Democrats on the whole believe in using government to correct the inequities and inefficiencies the market creates, while Republicans on the whole think market outcomes are almost always better than anything government can produce.

That’s not cheap partisanship. It’s a fundamental divide. The paradox is that our understanding of politics would be more realistic if we were less cynical and came to see the battle for what it really is.

Yes, the country is divided. Yes, it's a two-party system. Yes, there's a difference between the two major parties. My objection to partisanship isn't that it's mindless, quite the contrary -- it's very very mindful! Partisans miss the fact that so many Americans are getting turned off by partisanship for that very reason. And speaking of which, here's Jackie Salit and Fred Newman on "Broken Government, Unscientific Psychology" in last week's Talk Talk:

Salit: Then we watched a discussion on CNN about the Conservative Political Action Committee meetings. They’re doing their thing. There’s a parade of presidential wannabes and leading lights, including Dick Cheney. John Avlon, CNN commentator and author who is an independent, said that the conservatives and the Republican Party need to be careful here. They can build a bridge to independents on fiscal conservatism and, insofar as that’s their rhetoric, they will connect with independents. But if they go beyond that, in his words, ‘If they go to making this a battle with socialism, independents won’t buy that.’ That will be a bridge too far in terms of trying to coalesce with independents.

Newman: I was telling you about Pat Choate’s new book “Saving Capitalism” where he says that insofar as the central ideological battle between conservatives and liberals is framed as a battle between capitalism and socialism, the fight is badly framed. Because it’s not really a fight between capitalism and socialism. It’s a fight, as he says – and I think he’s fundamentally correct about this – between state capitalism and free market capitalism. But I don’t think it’s seen that way, by and large.

Here are the news headlines for independent voters from across the nation:


OPEN PRIMARIES

• Partisanship in politics has gone too far (LETTER Statesman Journal)
• Florida Governor candidate Peter Allen questions future of campaign (Lake County Elections 2010 Examiner, W. Scott Bowlin) Allen has laid out a campaign that is based largely on term limits for current officeholders, ending Florida's closed primary system, as well as standard tax issues and criminal justice system flaws.
• Voters switching their allegiances (By JONATHAN CLAYBORNE and BETTY MITCHELL GRAY, Washington Daily News) The state GOP backed away from the proposal to close its primaries for fear that it might alienate voters who could be useful to them in the general election.

TEA PARTY

• Fisher Ahead In Ohio Dem Primary, But Trails Portman (Quinnipiac University Poll) -- Tea Party Scores Better Than Dems, GOP  -- But voters have a 32 - 23 percent favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, with 43 percent who haven't heard enough about it to form an opinion. Democrats view the Tea Party unfavorably by 42 - 7 percent, while Republicans are favorable 53 - 8 percent and independent voters like it 36 - 20 percent. Men like the Tea Party 40 - 25 percent, while women like it 25 - 22 percent. 

Talk Talk: Independents, Organized

Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009



Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, November 8, 2009 after watching selections from "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and "Hardball with Chris Matthews."


Newman: Because I don’t know what “it” is and I don’t know what “power” is in this context. Look, you have what you have. That’s what you have. And you organize what you have.

Salit: Yes.

Newman: When I say I don’t know what “it” is, I mean that it’s still very embryonic, very new. And it’s emerging at the rate that it’s emerging at. And it does the things that it does. So, when you say that they’re looking for trends, that’s not quite accurate. They’re looking for trends which they take to be comprehensible and possible, but only from a two-party point of view.

Salit: True enough.

Newman: So, they’re not looking at trends at all. They won’t look at our trends. They’re not even looking at trends in the same way that we consider trends. We know that there are two dominant major parties. But we also know that there’s something else going on. It’s a “becoming,” if you will.

Salit: Yes.

Newman: And they don’t consider that when they analyze what the elections are all about. It’s all swing, swing, swing, swing. Last year they swung one way. This year they swung another. Well, what if what you’re calling a “swing” is the emergence of a new kind of political movement?

Read Talk/Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk: Obama's Entaglements Or So What If He Is A Socialist?

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, September 6, 2009 after watching selections from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," "Hardball with Chris Matthews," and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Salit: I already have a working title for this week's Talk/Talk.

Newman: Which is?

Salit: "Obama's Entanglements." No doubt it's something of a redundancy, because being President of the United States is all about entanglements. But the two in particular that we'll talk about today are Afghanistan and the fight over health care.

Newman: I have an alternative title.

Salit: What is it?

Newman: My title is "So What If He Is a Socialist?"

Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk: Bill's Back

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, August 9, 2009 after watching selections from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," "Hardball with Chris Matthews," and several Charlie Rose interviews. Salit: Yes. So, on to the Clinton hostage release. Newman: Good job, Bill. Salit: Bill goes over, meets with the North Korean leader. Newman: Smiles only when off-camera. Salit: Smiles only off-camera, exactly. And brings the women home. Newman: Exactly. Salit: It was really a good play. Newman: He was the obvious person to go to resolve this. Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk: WHAT'S NEXT IN AFGHANISTAN?

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, August 2, 2009 after watching selections from "Hardball with Chris Matthews," "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and several Charlie Rose interviews. Newman: There are so many definitional questions to be asked here, that it makes approaching the question very, very difficult. What you said is correct. The objective is to make it less of a terrorist base from which to target both the region and the world. But the cultural assumptions embedded in the approach can get you into trouble. Those assumptions might not bear any relationship to how the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or ordinary Afghans look at this situation. Take the notion of "nation building." Well, the insurgents probably say: We already have a nation. This is our kind of nation. What you mean by a nation is having democratic elections, the outcome of which favor Washington, DC. That's not our definition of a nation. Arguably, this is them being realistic. It's them saying:This is what we have. Force has always played a major role in who controls the land. And land is the primary source of wealth and power. Throw in the religious traditions and the long history of resisting any kind of centralized rule, and the bottom line is that you can't relate to this situation as if it were Painesville, Ohio. This is not Painesville, Ohio. This is so far from being Painesville, Ohio that even the talk about nation building comes off sounding comic. Salit: I imagine our military leaders feel the same way. Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.

Talk Talk: LONG SHOTS

Sunday, June 28, 2009

To Our Readers: Talk/Talk will take a summer break for the month of July. Back in August. Happy Independence Day and have a great month! Jackie Salit *************************************************** Every week CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist/philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, June 28, 2009 after watching selections from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," "The Chris Matthews Show," "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and several Charlie Rose interviews. Salit: And how do you feel about the characterizations that some people are giving that the Iranian regime is fragile? Newman: Regimes have been called fragile and then lasted for centuries. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I don't know if it's fragile or not. Salit: Meaning that the fact there are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets doesn't necessarily equal fragility. Newman: In a more democratic society, having that many people out in the street protesting, would be an indicator of fragility. But Iran is not that kind of democratic society. Salit: Millions protested the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson was forced to withdraw from a re-election bid and the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968. Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

Is Ralph Nader now ready to play well with others, including Cynthia McKinney and Jackie Salit? Check out new blog Free Obama (Resist the Borg, Restore the Republic) hosted by Open Source pioneer Robert David STEELE Vivas... A book review of The Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny by Theresa Amato.

More thoughts on California political reform

Don't miss last week's Talk Talk with Fred Newman and Jacqueline Salit: The Moral Core

Newman: What if it’s unfindable, given the materials that we have to work with, namely people?

Salit: Well, that’s a problem.

Newman: I would say so.

Salit: Yes. And, you’re saying, what if it’s the case that the very thing that we need to make this thing work can’t be done, or can’t be done now, that it can’t be done at this stage of human development.

Newman: Alright. Let’s agree that that’s what I’m saying. What about that?

Talk Talk: Labor, Capital and Consistency

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Every weekend CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogues compiled on Sunday, May 24, 2009 after watching selections from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," and several Charlie Rose interviews. Read the entire Talk Talk here. Salit: How would you characterize what is going on in the world?   Newman: That's what I'm characterizing, what's going on.   Salit: Are you agreeing that it will work?   Newman: I'm not agreeing that it's going to work.   Salit: OK.   Newman: But that's what's going on. And it might work for some time, and I'm even agreeing that it might be what's needed right now to get the world over the hump of the current crisis. But I don't know that it's where things have to wind up. I think the interests of capital are, in some fundamental sense, antithetical to the interests of labor.   Salit: So, in other words, it's not clear there can be a workable synthesis?   Newman: Yes. But that's a different discussion.    Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.