KPFA shows us how to do convention coverage

08.31.12 - 12:16 pm | Tim Redmond |

(149)

I watched and I listened as the Republicans alienated much of America and the TV announcers made fools of themselves and the big newspapers reported what happened without much perspective or criticism. But the best coverage of he GOP convention came from a local outlet: KPFA's Mitch Jeserich, Davey D Cook, and Margaret Prescod had it nailed.

We got the word from the streets, the word from inside, great analysis of the issues and the speakers, all in a lively way that made me want to keep listening. Great interviews, great commentary, great back-and-forth between Mitch and Davey D, who are very different reporters with different styles... good work, folks.

Comments

FDR beat Landon in an *electoral* landslide.

He won nearly 99% of the *electoral* *college* ballots, and *that* is why it was called a landslide.

I think you realize that and your insults are just cover for your duplicity.

Lee did not win a "landslide." Lee did not win 99% of the vote. He did not even win a supermajority -- a word which *is* defined in the dictionary.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

You're using your own definition of a "landslide".

The usual definition is where the winner gets 60% or more of the vote, assuming only two alternatives.

By that definiton, Lee's win over Avalos was a landslide (just). When you consider that Lee got 50% more votes than Avalos, that certainly makes sense.

Newsom versus Gonzalez, on the other hand, was not a landslide. Newsom got only about 10% more votes than Gonzo.

Simple.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:40 am

Really? I'll use *your* definition then!

Fifty-nine point six-four percent of the vote is *not* a landslide.

It's *not* "barely" sixty percent. It's *not* a landslide.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 5:09 am

The figure I saw for the Lee-Avalos "runoff" was a tad over

60% for Lee. But it doesn't really matter much if it is 56.64% or 60.14%.

Either way, 50% more people voted for Lee than Avalos, and that is not "close" by any definition.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 10:29 am

You lie pompously. The only figure you may have seen is 59.64%.

But you can't be bothered with facts when no doubt you have much more lying to do. Don't you feel shame from lying so glibly? Obviously not.

This site really could use some means for ignoring the fuck out of your kind; serial, glib, and pompous liars.

( http://www.sfelections.org/results/20111108/data/mayor.html )

Imp me now, zero. You lose again.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

59.5% or 60.5% doesn't matter much.

(Unless you're Al Gore - snigger).

Either way Lee got about 50% more votes than Avalos, and that is a huge and easy win. I don't care if you call that a landslide or not. It's a massive win.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

Okay "Guest" happen to know the whereabouts of the other

"Guest" who proclaimed Lee's win a "landslide?"

Because I think you are the same "Guest" and have revealed your medacious character and general lack of intellectual acumen.

And yes: it is just one small part of a larger pattern. Reactionary B.S.ers come here to spout a bunch of unsubstantiatable crap. Over, and over, and over again. A microcosm of the larger world.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

There are multiple "Guests" here and multiple "Lillipublicans"

so I wouldn't worry much about who said what. But if candidate A gets 50% more votes than candidate B, I think that most reasonable observers would claim that A won handsomely, easily and consummately.

As to whether you call that a landslide or not, frankly I don't give a damn.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:56 pm

I'd put money that you're the same 2-faced dirtball

who's been imp'ing me. Intellectual low-life.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 5:41 pm

WALL STREET/WARMONGERS

@lP.
Thanks for your considered response. I agree with you. I try and resist getting involved in any so called discussions here since it has become, with a few exceptions, basically a cesspit of incessant repetitive claptrap from ignorant idealogues, but I figured your response warranted at least a brief reply. After decades of involvement in the struggle for Peace, Justice and Equality I think we are probably further from achieving that goal than we were 60 years ago, but that doesn't mean I have given up or in. I think we have to look at our unicameral political system pragmatically. The reality is that one of these two corrupt parties is going to occupy the White House and as always the 'choice' is the lesser of evils. Dissemblers or Liars, take your pick.
It is probably to late for any other 'party' to achieve significant positions of high office, though overturning Citizens United could be a start. I think any such campaigns are wasted energy and either self-delusional or self-promoting. The focus should be on 'down-ticket' races where there is a greater chance of success and the possibility of effecting some minor change, big oaks from little acorns grow.
That being said I have no faith in any party, the only one I would join would be one focused on music and dancing, wining and dining. I do not consider myself to a democrat, progressive etc; the only label I would tag myself with would be - radicalzenanarcho-yippiehumanist mofo, and I'm not wedded to that either.
Bill Moyers is one of the few commentators I respect. Two of his recent programs are very 'interesting': "Confronting the Contradictions of America's (racist) Past"; and "The Resurrection of Ralph Reed".
One current 'issue' that I have been putting more energy into for the past year is
confronting the Agrochemical Industry. The world-wide spread of Genetically Modified crops and assosciated highly toxic fertilisers and pesticides is a disaster on so many levels and threatens the biodiversity essential to sustaining all life forms on the planet. PROPOSITION 37 will be on the ballot in November, it is one small step in the fight against the likes of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and their attempt to control and monoplise the world food supply. More information can be found at:-
www.labelgmos.org
www.carighttoknow.org
www.gmwatch.org.
Please check it out y'all, we are what we eat, let's keep it clean and tasty.
Just my thruppence.
Patrick Monk.RN. Noe Valley. SF. Ca.
GO GIANTS.
Time to put the pedal to the metal and leave the Dodgers choking in our dust.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 9:18 am

If you have the time....

Just FYI I recommend two recent Bill Moyers programs:-
"The Resurrection of Ralph Reed"
"Confronting the Contradictions of America's Past"
Just my thruppence.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

How do we bring civil liberties into the national debate?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Pat. I will check out the Moyers programs. I admire him, too :-) And I know that many progressives/ liberals are planning to vote for Obama as the "lesser evil". I respect people's decisions when it comes to their vote. My only question for you and other Obama “supporters” is~ If you’re going to give this man your vote, shouldn’t you expect something from him in return? Or do you plan to just roll over for him and let him have his way with you? Forgive me for putting it crudely.

But really, I think that you and likeminded companeros have a right to demand something in exchange for your votes. Because, look, this is no ordinary president. This is a man who has a kill list, and who has actually taken people out, including U.S. citizens, without trial or due process, nada. And it’s all very secretive…no one knows who’s on the list. And this president has appointed a very secretive, extralegal group referred to as his "death panel” (& no, I don’t mean health care) to advise him on who to take out. So face it, what we have here is an imperial president~ that is, a president who has arrogated unprecedented powers to himself.

Perhaps the greatest failing of this president, apart from his warmongering, is his handling of civil liberties. So, shouldn’t we demand that both parties debate this issue of civil liberties and ask why we should vote for someone who has subverted the Constitutional in a way that his predecessor could only dream of, because he knew he’d never get away with it? Yet, we’ve allowed Obama to get away with dismantling the U.S. Constitution and putting his own extralegal process in its place.

As I said, I respect people’s right to vote the way their conscience dictates. But I can’t help but wonder, as law professor Jonathan Turley put it in a conversation with John Cusack, if there isn’t some “bright line” that you and others of a similar mind won’t cross when it comes to presidents who murder and torture and treat the Constitution like so much toilet paper? Sorry to put it like this, but it seems to me that a vote for Obama is tacit acceptance of his policies.

Posted by lp on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

Ironically, it's civil liberties that are a big part of what the

Tea Party is concerned about. A libertarian right-winger is typically more hostile towards "big government" than a socialist.

Civil liberties have been on the decline since States' rights got neutered in the Civil War. The founding fathers, were they alive today, would be horrified by the incursion of central government into the ordinary lives of the people. Their conception was to avoid that mistake.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 9:30 am

Re: civil liberties -- the Tea Party is all over the map.

The Tea Partiest said *nothing* against G.W.Bush's anti-civil rights excesses. They only started making noise when a Black man took up residence in the White House, so it is a bit difficult to take their "libertarian" impulses seriously.

In fact, that movement is pretty much astro-turf for the corporate right.

That's not to foreclose on the possibility for us right-thinking Americans to find comity in regards to civil rights; it's just that it hasn't really been happening.

As for state's rights taking a hit during the civil war, that's a valid observation. As to whether that is materially what is holding back civil liberties, many, many protesters for civil rights during the 60's would have a great belly-laugh over that silly claim.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

The Tea Party is still 100 times more active and

influential than anything on the left (Occupy? What happened to that?).

IMO, people are far too obsessed with their "rights" and not nearly concerned enough with their freedoms. But that's another topic for another time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 7:48 am

Tea Party founded in 2009

according to wikipedia, kind of hard to have the party complaining about Bush when they had not formed yet.

Kind of comical that a rote left winger complains about the rote right wing being astro-turf.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 4:28 am

WHOREMONGERS

lP.
Last word, again I essentially agree with you, I will not vote for either of them of any other 'party' hack, especially on the national stage (Pelosi, Feinstein etc), I am waiting for Pigasus to run again.
In California, and many other states, barring some miraculous conversion on the road to damnation, the result is predetermined and our vote is meaningless. We have neither a representative democracy nor a democratic republic. I'm not a constitutional scholar but it seems to me that one way to reduce the power of the plutocratic oligarchy and combat the entrenched political elites might be to make the popular vote the method by which we elect our President. He or she might then be more subject to the will of all the people and less to the special interests, we could also dispense with the electoral college and lessen the likelihood of a president being appointed by a Supremely Suspect Court.
Just my thruppence.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 8:50 am

Monk, I share your jaudiced views, but regarding the Electoral

College, and the possibilities for transitioning to a popular vote presidency, I have some misgivings.

The main reason to dispense with the Electoral College, in my opinion, is that it gives voters in small states a grossly disproportionate power on choosing president; the same advantages they enjoy with respect to their representation in the Senate.

The problem I see with having the president be chosen by popular vote -- and I'll concede it has great appeal -- is that corruption the election systems in any number of states might lead to even more wholly corrupt outcomes than we have already seen.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 9:11 am

The reason to over-weight small States is well known.

The founding fathers deliberately put in that "bias" towards rural area's to avoid the country being run by just a few large cities.

I think you only have a problem with that because the sparsely populated places like Wyoming tend to be right-wing, while the major cities are left-wing.

Anyway, the crushing drawback of a popular vote system is that places like Wyoming would get totally ignored. Candidates would simply focus all their efforts on CA, NY, FL, TX etc. while ignoring the rural area's.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Idiot. The conservative and

Idiot. The conservative and liberal states DO get ignored in presidential politics which only concerns itself with swing states.

You were probably home schooled in both math and civics, huh?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 10:51 am

Marcos, I was explaining the reasons behind having an

electoral college, and why places like Wyoming are "over-represented". It was deliberate and so not a flaw of the system.

But yes, of course it's the swing States that get more attention. Although I wouldn't call States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida as being unimportant, would you?

Even so, even with the compensation designed into the electoral college, the big prizes are still NY, CA and TX. It's not that they get ignored at all. In fact, I wish politicians would ignore us more!

But with a popular vote system, politicians would probably ignore about 40 States, which would be much worse.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:21 am

The point was to give small

The point was to give small states a boost in the Senate and the Electoral College advantage was a side effect of that. The problem is that when very small minorities are given a disproportionate electoral boost--Wyoming has fewer residents than San Francisco yet gets three electoral votes, rural California has ten times more population than Wyoming, you get the picture--then that creates instability as we are seeing now when public policy diverges substantially from public opinion.

That is the yarn from which the fabric of political delegitimation is spun.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 7:56 am

The point was more specific - to ensure that rural communities

did not get railroaded by the major population centers.

Your comparison between Wyoming and San Francisco is a non sequitor. Wyoming is a State and San Francisco is a County/City. so you'd never expect SF to have the same clout as Wyoming. For a start, SF doesn't have any Senators in DC and doesn't have much tax-raising power. You can't compare States with Municipalities regardless of population.

And anyway, CA does get adequate representation through - you guessed it - the House of Representatives. Wyoming has just one House member. California has - what? - 50?

Every electoral system has it's biases. But unless you want to start a fight to change the Constitution, then you have to accept the system we have and work within it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 11:33 am

Nonsense, because with a

Nonsense, because with a direct popular vote, every vote counts and the winner take all dynamic does not hold. Campaigning to maximize votes everywhere is how you win most elections.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

There's little support for changing to a popular vote system and

most of the time, it would give the same result as with the electoral college (2000 being a narrow exception).

The point of our system is that we have both representation of population (The House) and representation by jurisdiction (The Senate). It follows from that that the President be chosen by a combination of the two.

Anyway, since it's in the Constitution, the issue is moot. The system is the same for everyone so work within it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:36 am

*Plenty* of support exists for changing to popular vote.

One can logically deduct that fact from the very 2000 election that you cite. (Duh!)

And, not sure if you are the same "Guest" who originally posited that the electoral college system was for making sure that large states didn't dominate small states, but that is wrong.

You are conflating the manner in which senators are allocated two-per-state with the manner in which presidents are selected.

The lopsided mechanism for electing the president was compromise stemming from several factors but -- and this is a key fact -- it was made when the most populous state was only ten times the size of the least populous state.

Nowadays we have 70:1 size disparity between the largest and the smallest.

And to amplify what marcos wrote: yes, the people in solidly red and blue states are largely ignored during presidential elections except as a source of campaign funds.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 5:49 am

But the 2000 vote was valid. It wasn't invalid just because

you wanted the guy who lost to win.

If the system was determined by popular vote, then Bush would have campaigned differently, and so would most likely still have won.

You can't blame a candidiate for taking some notice of how our voting system actually works!

The people in CA who were really disenfranchised were the GOP voters, whose votes were effectively not counted.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 10:34 am

Such powerful stupidity of willfullness deserves mention.

How else to formulate an intelligent reply to such a eminently risable statement?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

Such powerful stupidity of willfullness deserves mention.

How else to formulate an intelligent reply to such a eminently risable statement?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

What part are you confused about?

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but, had the popular vote been the deciding factor, Bush would have campaigned differently. That's rather obvious, I think.

So the fact that Gore got more votes is irrelevant. The way our system works, Bush won.

Ironically, the SF progressives didn't want popular vote deciding the Supes elections, preferring instead the District system which.

Progs just want whatever system they think will give them a better chance, be that popular vote, IRV, district representation etc.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

It's abundantly clear that these "moderates" who plague

this site -- and I pluralize that term advisedly, since it is entirely possible that almost all this sort of crap emanates from one malignancy -- just spout nonsense as a form of signal-jamming to interupt the flow of intelligent discourse.

Unable to win a debate on facts, this sort returns to the same non-sequitur attacks again and again. This kind of behavior belies the weak intellect of those (him?) who engage in it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

50 years ago the Supreme

50 years ago the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional any scheme that allocates votes other than one per person. The US Constitution has embedded in it other voting schemes that would otherwise be held unconstitutional as well.

The Constitution should be harmonized to promote one person, one vote in all cases. Otherwise some animals are more equal than others, just like in Communism according to Orwell.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 6:30 am

The current voting system is simply a balance and a compromise

between the popular vote and the jurisdictional vote.

To use either to the exclusion of the other would be a bigger injustice.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 10:30 am

IT CAN GET MORE CORRUPT !!!!

Probably.
Popular vote - it might dilute the domination and dollars of the elites and make it more difficult for them to focus all their power on a few 'swing' races. It might make every vote count. It might restore some power to the people. And yes, it might open the door to even more corruption, that is after all the Amerikan way. However no significant change can occur until we first overturn Citizens United.
GO GIANTS.
SEPTEMBER SURGE.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 9:58 am

H - are you still posting under Monk's name?

I thought you were supposed to be working on your memoirs and your new comedy routine? Didn't you say a year ago you were done posting here, and now you're back? Can't get enough of us huh?

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 10:07 am

Troll ll

Aptly named, what an ignorant moron you are.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Quiet Monk

Or I post that picture I have of you buying adult diapers at a South Bay Wal-Mart - using a COUPON. It's hilar - be careful or it goes up.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Shame on BG editors for putting up with your bullying

While you're at it, please post the pictures of Mr. Monk giving comfort and aid to the dying in hospice care. Please post the pics of Mr. Monk working to enhance the beauty of this city through his building and restoration work. And please post the pictures of Patrick Monk fighting the good fight against Monsanto to protect the foundations of our food system so that future generations can keep on living and prospering. (What have you done with your life to compare with Patrick Monk, besides harassing other people?) Then post your own picture so we can see the pathetic coward and bully you are...so we can finally put a face to the person doing the harassing. Or are you too chickenshit?

And shame on BG editors for putting up with your bullying.

Lisa P.

Posted by lp on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

Agreed, lp. Troll II never adds anything of value to this forum;

but rather only expresses mental illness and malevolence.

If the editors of SFBG can't be bothered and/or afford to have a moderator flush this self-identified troll, then they should enamble others to perform such duty on a volunteer basis.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

Doesn't everyone have value?

Ain't I a commenter too?

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

Value ?

I guess so, but only as a reflection of the lowest possible common denominator.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 12:57 am

Troll ll

Aptly named, what an ignorant moron you are, can you actually tell the difference between your asshole and that hole under your nose.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

T-Troll

PLEASE post it you ignorant dipshit. Will you no-nothing nattering nebbishes ever learn that it is better to say nothing and have people think you are stupid than to open your mouths and remove all doubt. PLEASE show the pictures, put up or STFU; did you get my best side.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

You have a good side?

Who knew?

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

Your best shot ?

I already called you - sin cajones
POST IT- DIPSHIT.
What a sad-sack 'o shit.
Game, set, match.
Go play with your sock puppet,
Maybe Enid Blyton can give you a woodie.
Cos you sure ain't got no standing here.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 8:05 pm

Listen old man

You can't post pictures on this site - you are aware of how this new-fangled Internet thing works are you not?

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

Yo punk

Then why did you 'threaten' to do so on this new-fangled internet thing. You really are a stupid pathetic little turd aren't you.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

Yo punk

Then why did you 'threaten' to do so on this new-fangled internet thing. You really are a stupid pathetic little turd aren't you.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

I'll post it somewhere else

Meanwhile when are you going to post that picture of our former mayor picking his nose? - you were filled with delight at that a couple of weeks ago.