Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why did Campaign for America's Future remove an article against Social Security cuts?

And why, especially, did CAF "remove"* an article that shreds Obama's (current) plan to treat elders to a cat food diet?** Let's start with a screen shot:

CAF

(And before moving on, I must say that -- I just have to say that -- I'm totally chuffed when "a moment of moral clarity" can't be found at "the strategy center for the progressive movement," search for it though we might. Too perfect.)

Here, for completeness, is the paragraph that contains the search string "a moment of moral clarity," from the Common Dreams re-post of the original CAF article (also at HuffPo; the original is cited by letsgetitdone at Corrente, Kos, and FDL).

Ask a Democrat: On Social Security, Which Side Are You On?
This is a moment of moral clarity. Right now there are only two sides in the Social Security debate: the side that says it’s acceptable to cut benefits – in a way that raises taxes for all income except the highest – and the side that says it isn’t.

It’s time to ask our leaders – and ourselves – a simple question: Which side are you on?

Nancy Pelosi says she can convince most Congressional Democrats to “stick with the President” as he pursues his gratuitous and callous plan to cut Social Security benefits as part of a deficit deal – even though Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.

Excuse me: Stick with the President? What about sticking with our seniors and our veterans? What about sticking with our disabled fellow Americans? What What about sticking with the more than 4,000 children on Social Security who lost a parent in the Iraq War?

It would be irresponsible not to speculate, so and but could the underlined words have caused CAF's censors removers to whip out their digital scissors? Questioning or criticizing "the President" -- often, the locution is "our President" -- is, after all, strongly taboo among career "progressive" tribalists.

Or could it have been the headline, which would indeed be awkward if posed to, say, "Leader" Pelosi?

So, why did "Our Future" -- whaddaya mean, "our"? -- take the post down? Inquiring minds want to know, but alas, there are no comments at their blog, so none of "us" can ask the question.

NOTE Hat tip, Avedon for the catch. Click the link -- http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121221/ask-a-democrat-on-social-security-whi... -- and you too can get an Error 404 Not Found! Here is the URL to the censored removed article (I had to add carriage returns to make this and the next URL wrap, so take them out if you copy and paste them):


http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121221/
ask-a-democrat-on-social-security-which-side-are-you-on

And here is the URL for the Google search:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en
&tbo=d
&output=search
&sclient=psy-ab
&q=%22%E2%80%9CThis+is+a+moment+of+moral+clarity.
+Right+now+there+are+only+two+sides+in+the+Social+Security%22
&oq=%22%E2%80%9CThis+is+a+moment+of+moral+clarity.
+Right+now+there+are+only+two+sides+in+the+Social+Security%22
&gs_l=hp.3...844.1789.0.2236.3.3.0.0.0.0.100.299.1j2.3.0.les
%3B..0.0...1c.1.cMtBLkTjZLM
&pbx=1
&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.
&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ
&fp=a7e118819f5e1e5b
&bpcl=40096503
&biw=1001
&bih=550

And here is a screen shot of the Google results:

Google

The 404 is at the very first link.

NOTE * I won't say the word "censor." But feel free to think it!

NOTE * I'm sure that in any internal editorial discussions -- if "editorial" is the word I want for a publication that is, in the end, a party organ -- censorship removal would have been couched in terms of "Not reducing the President's options," "giving the President flexibility," or possibly "wiggle room." But cutting social insurance programs shouldn't be "on the table" at all. The only rational and humane policy is: "NOT ONE PENNY OF CUTS to social insurance programs, and any cost savings returned to beneficiaries as services." After that, we can move on to lowering Social Security eligibility to 60, so more young people can get jobs, and making Social Security age neutral, so young people don't get progressively more screwed out of their retirement.

AttachmentSize
campaign_540.jpg59.96 KB
google_540.jpg79.54 KB
0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by hipparchia on

probably it was.

i see they've allowed this article to stay up [so far] which calls out a pseudonymous "liberal" blogger instead of congresscritters:

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121223/the-liberal-scrooges

otoh, the former post [that's now gone] linked to a 'call your congresscritter' phone list http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/publicstatementcallpage, while the newest post [by the same author] links to a petition site http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/senate_deal_2012/, so maybe the tactic was changed now that the congresscritters are presumably home for the holidays and not in their dc offices?

NWLuna's picture
Submitted by NWLuna on

is my guess. Whereas contacting your own Congresscritter directly causes them to pay more attention to you, the voter from their home state/district.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

"I voted for him and look what he's doing! Wery Wery mad at him." Yeh, along with the gang at The Nation, CAP is just starting the whole process over again. Shock, Shock, Complain, Complain, but vote for Democrats and then put out petitions when the president and Dems are about to throw the 99% overboard, this time without even the life vests. Just a stinking manual on "How to Swim". This is tiresome. And cruel.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

davecjohnson's picture
Submitted by davecjohnson on

Hey, CAF is building a new blog and there are some problems with the redirects. Articles are appearing and then disappearing. The fact that the one you write about was widely re-posted and says CAF on it makes it clear this is the CAF position.

I am sure this particular one will reappear soon.

Meanwhile there are LOTS of posts about Social Security and chained CPI right now, many blasting any Dems who support this. (Also we published Mike Lux's "First Loyalties)

Just a few examples and only from the last 2 weeks - go to the blog and look http://blog.ourfuture.org/
The Liberal Scrooges
Social Security is Still the Third Rail (You’ve Been Warned)
Progressive Leaders Stand Against Social Security Cuts
Defense Lobby Wins, Middle Class Loses In Obama Debt Proposal
Progressives In Congress Say “No Deal” To Social Security Cuts
8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical – And More Effective – Than the “Chained CPI”
Bumping Up To Premium Catfood
DC Elites Literally Propose Old People Eat Cat Food
Dear “Chained-CPI”: When You’ve Lost the VFW, You’ve Lost America
Is Your Senator a Champion for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
ALERT: Tell Congress Today: Don’t Put Chains On My Social Security

Submitted by hipparchia on

i was hoping it was just technical issues. i've always liked caf better than most of the other 'lefty' organizations, though even they've generally not been liberal enough in my view. glad to hear they're not consciously resorting to censorship!

davecjohnson's picture
Submitted by davecjohnson on

This is from Isaiah Poole:

"As the editor of the OurFuture.org blog, I was as surprised as anyone when I was alerted that a post by Richard Eskow challenging Democrats on where they stand on Social Security benefits no longer appeared on our blog. I immediately inquired as to how the post was deleted. I still don't know how the post was deleted as of this writing, but I immediately had the item reposted, and it appears at this link: http://blog.ourfuture.org/?p=80580. If the writer of the Corriente item had before publishing first asked me or another member of our online team his question, "Why did Campaign for America's Future remove an article against Social Security cuts?" we would have responded in the same way, thus sparing Corriente the embarrassment of publishing an inaccurate article."