Arianna spoke with MSNBC's Alex Witt on Sunday morning about her book "Third World America," as the chances Tea Party candidates like Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller have in the upcoming midterm elections.
The anger that many Americans feel "is producing candidates who are not electable, and Christine O'Donnell is one of them," Arianna said. "And unfortunately whoever advised her to do that new ad about 'I am not a witch' didn't do her any favors."
"The main result of the Tea Party in the elections is going to be in the turnout -- who is going to turn out is going to determine who controls the House and maybe the Senate. Of course in some cases, like in the case of Christine O'Donnell, or maybe in Nevada, in the case of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate may lose Republicans the race."
Independents, who are largely disillusioned with the political establishment, are the key bloc, Arianna says.
WATCH:
I went back and was looking at movements in the past. Shockingly, I found more similarity to another movement that swept America during the 1920's, leading to the defeat of legislators and even the impeachment of a govenor for the sole reason of opposing the movement.
In November 1923, the govenor of Oklahoma was impeached for his opposition to the Ku Klux Klan by a legislature infiltrated by Klan supporters. Candidates with KKK backing were elected to senate seats in six states. A respected four term senator from Texas was defeated by a relatively unkown candidate - who was backed by the KKK. In Youngstown Ohio, the KKK held the position of mayor and the entire city government.
I know people today think the Klan was merely to oppose the rights of African Americans, and this is true in the deep south. But from Texas to the mid-west to as far as Oregon, the KKK had a platform against anyone deemed un-American. Most members were attracted by the exact same anti-government and anti-immigrant message of the Tea Party. Congrats Rove, the Exalted Cyclops of the Tea Party.
I know, I lived in Third World banana-republics for a long time and watch each one of these countries start their decline with their own version of TARP.
And just like Americans, the so-called 'middle-class' were the first to defend the IMF/World Parasite bail outs of international Wall Street/City of London banksters, but then they quickly turned to ugly rioting once the IMF/World Parasite austerity packages kicked into full gear.
So keep on thinking TARP was cute-n-funny but take it from me, you're going to regret it.
Why can't TARP-defenders see that?
We could've put the banks through RECEIVERSHIP/BANKRUPTCY RE-ORGANIZATION!
Then you and all consumers would get no more credit-card bills, no more bills for personal loans, all the usurious bills you get now for overpaying consumer goods for their fraud would've been forgiven!
Yea, why wouldn't you have not wanted that?
Instead you will still have to pay these criminals outrageous interests rates, fees, etc., and you will still default.
The banks are STILL INSOLVENT, which TARP was supposed to fix.
The toxic debt will one-way-or-another be FLUSHED down the toilet.
Now TARP makes it sure that you will join them as nation.
They do not realize how tax breaks for big business hurt the country. First it raises the deficit idecreasing the value of our money and decreasing our ability to consume. and second it reduces jobs in two ways, by increasing the desirability of automation purchases with accelerated depreciation it reduces the labor (read jobs) initially, and second by eliminating those jobs it eliminates effective consumer demand which further reduces jobs.
If we want to change it , we first have to make people educated enough to understand when we are being played so they can protest and if necessary vote out the offending party.
"One case that you don't have a direct link for, hardly the tons of lawsuits that you claim."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/us-steel-eeoc-lawsuit-abigail-desimone-firing_n_747633.html
And if you don't think corporate America is paranoid of lawsuits asserting discriminatory labor practices, whether in regards to compensation, or in regards to termination, then you're not paying attention. Have you ever even worked in the corporate world at all?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. These laws protect employees and job applicants against employment discrimination when it involves:
•Unfair treatment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
It sounds good to you doesn't it? Punish businesses that are "unfair" based on race and gender, etc? But what's important to understand is that businesses are threatened by these regulations even when they are not being horrid discriminatory bigots. These regulations add to the risk of hiring employees, because in order to interract with employees, the employer has to protect themselves from lawsuits. If you had actually worked in the corporate world you would have heard of the many frivolous lawsuits brought asserting discrimination that businesses just settle to avoid a long costly court battle to prove they were being "fair".
This regulation has the perverse effect of hindering job growth for everyone. It may sound good, but its effect is to kill job growth.
But government doesn't have any business in deciding what is "fair". If two parties voluntarily agree to an economic transaction, then government has no legitimate authority to intrude on that agreement.
1953 = $22,648
1973 = $34,762
2. From 1973 to 2009, Inflation Adjusted Median Income fell by $2,578.
1973 = $34,762
2009 = $32,184
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/P05AR_2009.xls
3. The same thing shows up in Weekly Earnings.
All earners:
1979 = $339
2008 = $339
No Change over 30 years
Men:
1979 = $412
2010 = $389
DECREASE of $23/week
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?le
4. While per capita GPD has doubled:
1969 = $21,021
2010 = $42,517
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/Historical¬RealPerCap¬itaIncomeV¬alues.xls
5. This is accomplish by shifting the income distribution:
Share Of Aggregate Income by Quintile:
BOTTOM 20% - 1967: 4.0% 2009: 3.4% Change: -0.6%
LOWER MIDDLE - 1967: 10.8% 2009: 8.6% Change: -2.2%
MIDDLE CLASS - 1967: 17.3% 2009: 14.6% Change: -2.7%
UPPER MIDDLE - 1967: 24.2% 2009: 23.2% Change: -1.0%
UPPER CLASS - 1967: 43.6% 2009: 50.3% Change: +6.7%
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H02AR_2009.xls
Bottom line message: WORK MORE, PRODUCE MORE, BUT GET LESS
#2 I can't get passes the racism
I think Arianna is missing the point here. The point is not that these candidates are unelectable--they are--but that they are incapable of governing. They are not showing that they understand the complex problems we face and a lot of their solutions will further harm our now precarious position.
The US "position" is unsustainable, as it represents the consumption of 25% of the world's resources by 5% of its population. The real question is what is the world getting in exchange for this slave-like exploitation? and how long will the world continue to imagine that the people of the US are born such better people, that they deserve 5 times the goods of average people?
But the reality is anything but.
Best thing for US is too get off its hi horse.
The danger in getting extremists get their way when they are angry is that they usually burn the house down, When they get into office they barely deliver, cos by then the anger has dissipated and one finds they are in the first place very ordinary people.
That lady was spot on and that lady was Arianna. She really capsulized the problem that has only gotten worse.
These politicians get in office and they are afraid to offend the big wigs (individuals or companies) whose money got the politicians elected.
It's no wonder our country is in the shape it is in. No one seems to be dealing with this very truth.