Mediaboss Marketing

Joe Garofol, San Francisco Chronicle

When the Bay Guardian abruptly stopped publishing on Tuesday, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano likened the closure to a death in the family that the citys progressives would need time to mourn.

But the 48-year-old newspaper had been on life support since founders and spouses Bruce Brugmann and Jean Dibble sold it to the San Francisco Media Co. in 2012. Like at just about every other print outlet around the country, revenue had fallen and staff had been laid off.

Rich DeLeon, a retired professor of political science at San Francisco State University and a historian of the citys left, said the progressive movement has lost its ideological super ego. He said the Guardians demise is sad. But it is kind of like your great-grandfather dying at 95. It led a good life and it was extremely influential at some point.

David Latterman, a University of San Francisco political analyst, said the papers closure was inevitable, not only because of its failing business model, but also because of the continuing loss of its highly partisan readership.

It had an impact 10 years ago, but at best its support could affect 10 percent of the vote, he said. More recently, its probably about 3 percent.

The sale of the paper also robbed it of its image as the plucky underdog, with the new corporate ownership identity eclipsing Brugmanns founding promise to print the news and raise hell, said political consultant Eric Jaye.

Still, its loss has been keenly felt, especially among progressives who have lost their mouthpiece.

The biggest impact is that there wont be that 800-pound gorilla for the community to rally around, said Alex Clemens, a political consultant and founder of the Usual Suspects blog, an online aggregation of the citys political news from sources large and small.

But with any kind of information vacuum, it will open up opportunities for others to step into that leadership void, Clemens said, noting that there are dozens, if not hundreds of bloggers and online commentators in the city, and every neighborhood has some kind of news outlet.

More here:
Progressives mourn demise of the Bay Guardian

Lambert here: Its a shame to see Krugman kick the left (Susie Madrak has the definitive post on this). But then, when youve won the Nobel Prize for Obotics, that comes with the territory.

By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives

Paul Krugmans admirers would never list modesty as one of his characteristics. He has written a column In Defense of Obama that begins by explaining that his criticisms of President Obama were correct, but that unidentified others criticisms of Obama constitute trash talk.

Specifically, Obama came perilously close to doing terrible thingsto the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain. Obama sought to produce a self-inflicted disaster by desperately trying to reach a Grand Bargain with Republicans that would have inflicted austerity on our Nation in 2012, slash[ed] Social Security and [raised] the Medicare [eligibility] age. As even Krugman admits, we were saved from this catastrophe only by Republican greed, the GOPs unwillingness to make even token concessions to achieve the Grand Bargain. What Krugman omits in the tale is that it was also a revolt by Democratic progressives against the Grand Bargain that saved Obama and the Nation.

Krugman does not, in this column, explain the consequences and implications of the disaster that Obama tried so hard to inflict on us. First, it would help the reader to inform them that achieving the Grand Bargain became Obamas top domestic priority.

It would have aided the reader for Krugman to explain that as part of the Grand Bargain Obama was also trying to inflict austerity on the U.S. in response to the Great Recession. Had Obama succeeded he would have thrown the Nation back into a second Great Recession for the reasons that Krugman has often explained. This would have doomed his reelection chances and caused catastrophic losses to the Democratic Party in other 2012 elections.

Readers doubtless would have found it useful to know that that Obama ran for office on the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare from the cuts he sought to inflict. They also would find it useful to know that once Obama legitimized attacking the safety net programs it would make them fair game for unilateral Republican attacks on the safety net when they took control of the White House.

Krugman blames Obamas effort to enter into the Grand Betrayal as occurring because Obama was nave. He presents no support for that claim. Contemporaneous press accounts based on leaks from the White House revealed that Obama was motivated by a desire for fame. The Grand Bargain was to be his legacy and the fact that the Grand Bargain betrayed his supporters was the factor that demonstrated that he was a statesman. Democratic Presidents establish that they are serious by publicly betraying and deriding their progressive base.

Krugman defines Obamas critics as illegitimate. Krugman labels Obamas critics as engaging in Obama-bashing. Krugman goes on to label progressive critics of Obama as Obama-bash[ers] by mischaracterizing the criticisms and then dismissing straw man arguments that he crafts as not requiring refutation because the criticisms are obviously not serious.

Theres a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. Theyre outraged that Wall Street hasnt been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that neoliberal economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. Its hard to take such claims seriously.

Go here to see the original:
Bill Black: Krugman Bashes Progressives for Criticizing Obama on Grounds that He Criticizes Obama

Eat shit liberals

By: Drew Walker

Here is the original post:
Eat shit liberals - Video

October 19, 2014, 12:57 pm

The Liberals have declared victory in the West Australian seat of Vasse, although there has been a significant swing against the party.

Libby Mettam, a journalist-turned-media adviser for MP Barry House, currently holds 44.36 per cent of the vote, after 81.21 per cent was counted on Saturday night.

Her closest competitor was Busselton businessman Peter Gordon from the Nationals who secured 28.53 per cent from the early count.

In the two-candidate preferred vote, Ms Mettam secured 53.45 per cent while Mr Gordon held 46.55 per cent.

It was a 14 per cent drop for the Liberal Party since the 2013 election.

Since postal votes can be accepted until Thursday, counting will resume then.

Ms Mettam campaigned that she wanted to see local health and education services upgraded in line with the region's growing population, while also protecting natural assets.

She told a public forum in the lead-up to the election that she was willing to cross the floor on the issue of fracking in the South West region if it was what people in her electorate wanted.

The other four candidates in the by-election were structural engineer Michael Baldock for the Greens, Wayne Barnett for the Australian Christians, and independents Peter Johnson and Teresa Van Lieshout.

See the original post here:
Liberals set to retain WA by-election seat

Maddow Explains Why Democrats Suck
MSNBC #39;s Rachel Maddow has become increasingly frustrated with the way Democratic congressional candidates have run their campaigns ahead of the November midterm elections. When she ...

By: Secular Talk

Original post:
Maddow Explains Why Democrats Suck - Video