Fox News adesso ignora Trump?

Fox News, Once Home to Trump, Now Often Ignores Him



It’s been more than 100 days since Donald J. Trump was interviewed on Fox News.

The network, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and boosted Mr. Trump’s ascension from real estate developer and reality television star to the White House, is now often bypassing him in favor of showcasing other Republicans.

In the former president’s view, according to two people who have spoken to him recently, Fox’s ignoring him is an affront far worse than running stories and commentary that he has complained are “too negative.” The network is effectively displacing him from his favorite spot: the center of the news cycle.

On July 22, as Mr. Trump was rallying supporters in Arizona and teasing the possibility of running for president in 2024, saying “We may have to do it again,” Fox News chose not to show the event — the same approach it has taken for nearly all of his rallies this year. Instead, the network aired Laura Ingraham’s interview with a possible rival for the 2024 Republican nomination, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. It was the first of two prime-time interviews Fox aired with Mr. DeSantis in the span of five days; he appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show shortly after talking to Ms. Ingraham.

When Mr. Trump spoke to a gathering of conservatives in Washington this week, Fox did not air the speech live. It instead showed a few clips after he was done speaking. That same day, it did broadcast live — for 17 minutes — a speech by former Vice President Mike Pence.

Mr. Trump has complained recently to aides that even Sean Hannity, his friend of 20 years, doesn’t seem to be paying him much attention anymore, one person who spoke to him recalled.

The snubs are not coincidental, according to several people close to Mr. Murdoch’s Fox Corporation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the company’s operations. This month, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, both owned by Mr. Murdoch, published blistering editorials about Mr. Trump’s actions concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on the Capitol.

The skepticism toward the former president extends to the highest levels of the company, according to two people with knowledge of the thinking of Mr. Murdoch, the chairman, and his son Lachlan, the chief executive. It also reflects concerns that Republicans in Washington, like Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have expressed to the Murdochs about the potential harm Mr. Trump could cause to the party’s chances in upcoming elections, especially its odds of taking control of the Senate.

The Murdochs’ discomfort with Mr. Trump stems from his refusal to accept his election loss, according to two people familiar with those conversations, and is generally in sync with the views of Republicans, like Mr. McConnell, who mostly supported the former president but long ago said the election was settled and condemned his efforts to overturn it.

One person familiar with the Murdochs’ thinking said they remained insistent that Fox News had made the right call when its decision desk projected that Joseph R. Biden would win Arizona just after 11 p.m. on the night of the election — a move that infuriated Mr. Trump and short-circuited his attempt to prematurely declare victory. This person said Lachlan Murdoch had privately described the decision desk’s call, which came days before other networks concluded that Mr. Trump had lost the state, as something only Fox “had the courage and science to do.”

Some of the people acknowledged that Fox’s current approach to Mr. Trump could be temporary. If Mr. Trump announces he is running for president, or if he is indicted, he will warrant more coverage, they said.

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell declined to comment. A spokesman for the Fox Corporation also declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump.

The relationship between Mr. Trump and the Murdoch media empire has long been complicated — an arrangement of mutual convenience and mistrust that has had sensational ups and downs since Mr. Trump first talked himself onto the gossip pages of The New York Post in the 1980s.

But the spat between the former president and the media baron who has helped set the Republican Party’s agenda for decades is occurring in a much larger and more fragmented media landscape, as new personalities and platforms make it much harder for any one outlet to change the narrative. Mr. Trump’s allies in the corners of the conservative media that are more loyal to him — including Breitbart, Newsmax and talk radio — are already seizing on the turn inside Fox as evidence of a betrayal.

Mr. Trump appears willing to fight. He blasted “Fox & Friends” this week on his social media service, Truth Social, for being “terrible” and having “gone to the ‘dark side’” after one of its hosts had mentioned that Mr. DeSantis had beat Mr. Trump in two recent polls of a hypothetical 2024 Republican primary contest. Then, offering no evidence, he blamed Paul Ryan, the former Republican speaker of the House, with whom he often clashed. Mr. Ryan sits on the Fox Corporation’s board of directors.

The Post was often on Mr. Trump’s side in its editorials when he was president. But it occasionally went against him, like when Mr. Trump refused to concede the election in 2020 and the paper’s front-page headline blared: “Mr. President, STOP THE INSANITY.”

Mr. Trump found a home on Fox News when the network’s founder, Roger Ailes, gave him a weekly slot on “Fox & Friends” in 2011. Mr. Trump used the platform to connect with the budding Tea Party movement as he thrashed establishment Republicans like Mr. Ryan and spread a lie about the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

Initially, neither Mr. Ailes nor Mr. Murdoch thought of Mr. Trump as a serious presidential candidate. Mr. Ailes told colleagues at the time that he thought Mr. Trump was using his 2016 campaign to get a better deal with NBC, which broadcast “The Apprentice,” according to “Insurgency,” this reporter’s account of Mr. Trump’s rise in the G.O.P. And, when Ivanka Trump told Mr. Murdoch over lunch in 2015 that her father intended to run, Mr. Murdoch reportedly did not even look up from his soup, according to “The Devil’s Bargain,” by Joshua Green.

But as Mr. Trump became bigger than any one news outlet — and bigger than even his own political party — he was able to turn the tables and rally his supporters against Fox or any other outlet he felt was too critical of him. He regularly used Twitter to attack Fox personalities like Megyn Kelly, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove.

The network could always be critical of him in its news coverage. But now the skepticism comes through louder — in asides from news anchors, in interviews with voters or in opinion articles for other Murdoch-owned properties.

Referring to the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, the Fox anchor Bret Baier said it had made Mr. Trump “look horrific” by detailing how it had taken 187 minutes for him to be persuaded to say anything publicly about the riot. One recent segment on FoxNews.com featured interviews with Trump supporters who were overwhelmingly unenthusiastic about a possible third campaign, saying that they thought “his time has passed” and that he was “a little too polarizing.” Then they offered their thoughts on who should replace him on the ticket. Unanimously, they named Mr. DeSantis.

“I spent 11 years at Fox, and I know nothing pretaped hits a Fox screen that hasn’t been signed off on and sanctioned at the very top levels of management,” said Eric Bolling, a former Fox host who is now with Newsmax. “Especially when it has to do with a presidential election.”

There can be no denying that Fox News remains Fox News. Viewers in recent weeks have seen occasionally critical coverage of Mr. Trump, but, unlike other news networks, Fox has chosen to air its own prime-time programming rather than the hearings of the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. (The writer of this article is an MSNBC contributor.) Mr. Carlson, Mr. Hannity and Ms. Ingraham dismiss the hearings as a “show trial.”

“They are lying, and we are not going to help them do it,” Mr. Carlson has said. “What we will do instead is to try to tell you the truth.”

The network has aired the Jan. 6 committee hearings during the day, when far fewer viewers are tuning in. But other segments during the daytime and early evening play up violent crime in Democratic-run cities or Mr. Biden’s verbal and physical stumbles. As the government announced that a key indicator of economic health declined last quarter, the headline Fox scrawled across the screen read, “Biden Denies Recession as U.S. Enters Recession.”

On April 13, Mr. Trump called into Mr. Hannity’s show and ran through a list of crises he claimed would not be happening “had we won this election, which we did.”

He hasn’t been interviewed on the network since.

The post Fox News, Once Home to Trump, Now Often Ignores Him appeared first on New York Times.

L'Italia sulla buona strada per essere guidata da una coalizione di neofascisti

By Ishaan Tharoor
with Karina Tsui

Italy is on its way to being run by ‘post-fascists’

Giorgia Meloni, leader of Brothers of Italy, and League Party leader Matteo Salvini in Rome. (Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters)

The Brothers of Italy is not a fascist movement, as the far-right Italian party’s charismatic leader Giorgia Meloni has repeatedly insisted. But they are not not fascist either. Like European neo-fascists elsewhere, the Brothers revile immigration and grandstand over a cloistered, narrow vision of national identity. And like neo-fascists elsewhere, the party draws its origins from a distinctly fascist past — in this instance, from the Italian Social Movement, which was founded out of the ashes of World War II defeat in 1946 by supporters of executed dictator Benito Mussolini.

Meloni counts some of Mussolini’s descendants as her direct allies and still uses the same emblem once adopted by the inheritors of his politics. A few years ago, such connections would have been merely part of the atmospherics of the political fringe, where the Brothers of Italy languished. But Meloni and her party are now polling ahead of all other rivals in Italian politics. When voters elect a new government on Sept. 25 — a consequence of last week’s dramatic collapse of the coalition led by technocratic Prime Minister Mario Draghi — they may confirm Meloni as the country’s first female prime minister.

This state of affairs is largely due to the dysfunction of the unwieldy coalition government that has held sway in Rome since 2018. Draghi, a former president of the European Central Bank and a deeply respected political independent who stands somewhat athwart Italy’s polarized scene, was invited to office 18 months ago amid various squabbles and crises. He presided over what was widely viewed as a competent, stabilizing administration, but chose to quit last week after a number of coalition members — including the far-right League led by former interior minister Matteo Salvini, the populist Five Star Movement, and Forza Italia led by former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi — withdrew their support.


This is, of course, par for the course in Italian politics.

“If Draghi’s resignation was abrupt and undesirable, it was nonetheless entirely consistent with political practice in Italy’s post-1945 democratic era,” noted Tony Barber in the Financial Times. “His national unity administration lasted 17 months, slightly longer than the average term for the 69 governments since the Second World War.”

Meloni’s Brothers, unlike the other major right-wing parties, remained in opposition throughout the past few years. They have capitalized on a morass of public discontent over Italy’s long-running problems, including entrenched youth unemployment. Like other far-right leaders in Europe, Meloni rages against the country’s perceived inexorable decline.

“Yes to secure borders! No to mass immigration!” she declared earlier this summer at a rally for Spain’s far-right Vox. “Yes to our civilization! And no to those who want to destroy it!”

Now, the prospect of the rabble-rousing Meloni taking power seems more likely than ever. The Brothers are polling narrowly ahead of the center-left Democrats, but may count on the support of Salvini’s and Berlusconi’s factions as part of a broader right-wing coalition. If she does emerge as the biggest standard-bearer of the Italian right, it’ll mark one of the most significant journeys of a far-right politician into the European mainstream, outpacing veteran campaigners like France’s Marine Le Pen.


“Meloni has been an activist in post-fascist politics since her youth,” said Piero Ignazi, a professor emeritus at the University of Bologna, to France24. “The party’s identity is, for the most part, linked to post-fascist traditions. But its platform mixes this tradition with some mainstream conservative ideas and neoliberal elements such as free enterprise.”

Italy has seen numerous cycles of establishment-breaking elections and waves of political fragmentation and is proving fertile ground for the migration of “post-fascists” into the corridors of power. The Brothers are “the beneficiary of a much wider breakdown of the barriers between the traditional center-right and the insurgent far right, playing out across Western Europe and America,” wrote David Broder in the New York Times. “Heavily indebted, socially polarized and politically unstable, Italy is just the country where the process is most advanced. If you want to know what the future may hold, it’s a good place to look.”

Questions loom over what sort of disruptive presence a far-right government in Italy would represent for Europe’s liberal establishment. The continent’s nationalist, illiberal, Euroskeptic right — so far only in power on its eastern periphery — would have a striking new regional leader. A Meloni government may be considerably less enthusiastic about supporting the Ukrainian war effort against Russia than Draghi was, though she has been at pains in recent weeks to stress her Atlanticist credentials. It may be regressive on gender and minority rights; Meloni is an outspoken critic of the “LGBT lobbies” in the West.

It also may be rather meek. “If you are hoping that she will lead the revolution — against ‘Europe’ or ‘the establishment’ — you are likely to be disappointed,” Italian journalist Francesco Borgonovo wrote for Unherd, a right-leaning online publication. “Might she vex the EU establishment like [Hungarian Prime Minister Victor] Orban does? Possibly. But will the center-right allies whose support she needs to get into government — first and foremost Berlusconi — allow her to go down that road?”

Meloni is “popular these days because opposing policy is easier than making tough choices in government. As often happens in politics, once you actually have to make policy, public support dissipates quickly,” wrote Maria Tadeo for Bloomberg Opinion. “Italy also has an extraordinary ability to build and burn politicians. In fact, for Meloni, becoming the next premier — if that were indeed to happen — may prove a poisoned chalice.”

Che succede se Trump viene incriminato e condannato?

After gripping Capitol riot hearings -- will Trump be indicted?

Chris Lefkow and Charlotte Plantive



Should Donald Trump be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 US election?

The question, laden with consequences, hangs over Washington following the conclusion of a series of hearings by the House panel probing the attack on the US Capitol.

And with the 76-year-old Trump hinting at a new White House run in 2024, it has taken on added urgency.

The weighty decision to potentially bring charges against the former president rests essentially with one man: Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Here is a look at some of the possible charges -- and political fallout -- should the 69-year-old Garland pursue an indictment of Trump:

- The potential charges -

During eight televised public hearings, the House committee presented a roadmap for the head of the Justice Department to potentially follow.

Trump knew he lost the election -- his advisors told him so and his legal challenges went nowhere -- but he continued to insist it was "stolen" by Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump pressured election officials in Georgia to "find" the votes he needed to win and tried to strongarm then vice president Mike Pence into not certifying the election results at the January 6 meeting of Congress.

Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, telling them in a fiery speech near the White House to "fight like hell."

He then sat back for three hours and watched on TV as his loyal backers violently attacked the Capitol in a bid to block congressional certification of Biden's victory.

As for specific crimes, legal analysts said that Trump could face at least two charges: "conspiracy to defraud the United States" for seeking to overturn the election results and "obstruction of an official proceeding" for the Capitol attack.

Obstruction of an official proceeding has been the charge most often used against the hundreds of Trump supporters arrested for breaching the Capitol.
- The political fallout -

Besides the legal ramifications, an unprecedented prosecution of a former chief executive would likely cause a political earthquake in a volatile country already starkly divided along partisan Democratic and Republican lines.

"Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover," said Jack Goldsmith, who served as an assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

"It would be seen by many as politicized retribution," Goldsmith said in a New York Times op-ed, threatening to "further inflame our already blazing partisan acrimony."

Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, said prosecuting the former president would be a "catastrophic misstep by Trump's enemies" that could even wind up giving him a boost politically.

"Our institutions aren't in robust health and are ill-equipped to withstand the intense turbulence that would result from prosecuting the political champion of millions of people," Lowry wrote in Politico. "The case would presumably drag on for years."

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, argued that not holding Trump accountable would be equally harmful.

"I certainly recognize that indicting a former president would generate lots of social heat, perhaps violence," Tribe said. "But not indicting him would invite another violent insurrection."
- The attorney general -

Garland, the attorney general, has been asked frequently about his intentions but has been careful not to tip his hand.

He said recently the January 6 probe is the "most important" Justice Department investigation ever and it has to "get this right."


"We have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election," Garland said, emphasizing that "no person is above the law."

A former prosecutor and judge, Garland was appointed attorney general by Biden after being famously deprived of a seat on the Supreme Court by the Republican-controlled Senate in 2016.

Garland has a reputation for being cautious and scrupulously fair, leading to speculation he may appoint a special prosecutor to handle Trump's legal case to avoid any perception of conflict of interest.

Tribe, Garland's former professor at Harvard, said he believes the attorney general will ultimately indict Trump.

"He said he'd go to the top if that's where the evidence points and that's certainly where it's pointing now," Tribe told CNN. "I do think the odds are he will be indicted."
- The Trump defense -

Trump, who was impeached by the House for the January 6 insurrection but acquitted by the Senate, has spent weeks railing against what he calls a partisan "Kangaroo Court."

In a 12-page statement released in mid-June, Trump said the House committee was "making a mockery of justice."


"They have refused to allow their political opponents to participate in this process, and have excluded all exculpatory witnesses, and anyone who so easily points out the flaws in their story," he said.

"Democrats created the narrative of January 6th to detract from the much larger and more important truth that the 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen," he said.

William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, said prosecutors would be required to prove not only that Trump was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that he had an intention to violate the law.

"Not just that he obstructed the congressional proceeding by making it virtually impossible to count the votes and certify the election, but that's what he intended to do," Banks said.

Trump's lawyers, he said, could counter that narrative by casting him as a "patriot who truly believed that the election had been stolen from him and he was trying to save the country."

cl/ec

Jan. 6: Trump spurned aides’ pleas to call off Capitol mob

By LISA MASCARO, FARNOUSH AMIRI and ERIC TUCKERtoday (AP)



Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., speaks as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, July 21, 2022. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite desperate pleas from aides, allies, a Republican congressional leader and even his family, Donald Trump refused to call off the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol, instead “pouring gasoline on the fire” by aggressively tweeting his false claims of a stolen election and celebrating his crowd of supporters as “very special,” the House investigating committee showed Thursday night.

The next day, he declared anew, “I don’t want to say the election is over.” That was in a previously unaired outtake of an address to the nation he was to give, shown at the prime-time hearing of the committee.

The panel documented how for some 187 minutes, from the time Trump left a rally stage sending his supporters to the Capitol to the time he ultimately appeared in the Rose Garden video that day, nothing could compel the defeated president to act. Instead, he watched the violence unfold on TV.

“President Trump didn’t fail to act,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a fellow Republican but frequent Trump critic who flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. “He chose not to act.”

After months of work and weeks of hearings, the prime-time session started the way the committee began — laying blame for the deadly attack on Trump himself for summoning the mob to Washington and sending them to Capitol Hill.

The defeated president turned his supporters’ “love of country into a weapon,” said the panel’s Republican vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

Far from finishing its work after Thursday’s hearing, probably the last of the summer, the panel will start up again in September as more witnesses and information emerge. Cheney said “the dam has begun to break” on revealing what happened that fateful day, at the White House as well as in the violence at the Capitol.

“Donald Trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of office,” Cheney declared.

“Every American must consider this: Can a president who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of Jan. 6 ever be trusted in any position of authority in our great nation?” she asked.

Trump, who is considering another White House run, dismissed the committee as a “Kangaroo court,” and name-called the panel and witnesses for “many lies and misrepresentations.”

Plunging into its second prime-time hearing on the Capitol attack, the committee aimed to show a “minute by minute” accounting of Trump’s actions with new testimony, including from two White House aides, never-before-heard security radio transmissions of Secret Service officers fearing for their lives and behind-the-scenes discussions at the White House.

With the Capitol siege raging, Trump was “giving the green light” to his supporters by tweeting condemnation of Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to go along with his plan to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, a former White House aide told the committee.

Two aides resigned on the spot.

“I thought that Jan. 6 2021, was one of the darkest days in our nation’s history,” Sarah Matthews told the panel. “And President Trump was treating it as a celebratory occasion. So it just further cemented my decision to resign.”

The committee played audio of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reacting with surprise to the president’s inaction during the attack.

“You’re the commander-in-chief. You’ve got an assault going on on the Capitol of the United States of America. And there’s Nothing? No call? Nothing, Zero?” he said.

On Jan. 6, an irate Trump demanded to be taken to the Capitol after his supporters had stormed the building, well aware of the deadly attack, but his security team refused.

“Within 15 minutes of leaving the stage, President Trump knew that the Capitol was besieged and under attack,” said Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va.

At the Capitol, the mob was chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” testified Matt Pottinger, the former deputy national security adviser, as Trump tweeted his condemnation of his vice president.

Pottinger, testifying Thursday, said that when he saw Trump’s tweet he immediately decided to resign, as did Matthews, who said she was a lifelong Republican but could not go along with what was going on. She was the witness who called the tweet “a green light” and “pouring gasoline on the fire.”

Meanwhile, recordings of Secret Service radio transmissions revealed agents at the Capitol trying to whisk Pence to safety amid the mayhem and asking for messages to be relayed telling their own families goodbye.

The panel showed previously unseen testimony from the president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., with a text message to his father’s chief of staff Mark Meadows urging the president to call off the mob.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner also testified in a recorded video of a “scared” GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy calling him for help.

And in a gripping moment, the panel showed Trump refusing to deliver a speech the next day declaring the election was over, despite his daughter, Ivanka Trump, heard off camera, encouraging him to read the script.

“The president’s words matter,” said Luria, D-Va., a former Naval officer on the panel. “We know that many of the rioters were listening to President Trump.”

Luria said the panel had received testimony confirming the powerful previous account of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson of an altercation involving Trump as he insisted the Secret Service drive him to the Capitol.

Among the witnesses testifying Thursday in a recorded video was retired District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Sgt. Mark Robinson who told the committee that Trump was well aware of the number of weapons in the crowd of his supporters but wanted to go regardless.

“The only description that I received was that the president was upset, and that he was adamant about going to the Capitol and that there was a heated discussion about that,” Robinson said.

Chairman Bennie Thompson, appearing virtually as he self-isolates with COVID-19, opened Thursday’s hearing saying Trump as president did “everything in his power to overturn the election” he lost to Joe Biden, including before and during the deadly Capitol attack.

“He lied, he bullied, he betrayed his oath,” charged Thompson, D-Miss.

“Our investigation goes forward,” said Thompson. “There needs to be accountability.”

The hearing room was packed, including with several police officers who fought off the mob that day, and the family of one officer who died the day after the attack.

While the committee cannot make criminal charges, the Justice Department is monitoring its work.

So far, more than 840 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot. Over 330 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Of the more than 200 defendants to be sentenced, approximately 100 received terms of imprisonment.

No former president has ever been federally prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday that Jan. 6 is “the most wide-ranging investigation and the most important investigation that the Justice Department has ever entered into.”

Five people died that day as Trump supporters battled the police in gory hand-to-hand combat to storm the Capitol. One officer has testified that she was “slipping in other people’s blood” as they tried to hold back the mob. One Trump supporter was shot and killed by police.
___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Kevin Freking, Mike Balsamo, Chris Megerian in Washington and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

«Su, adesso basta con le sciocchezze....

Massimo Giannini per www.lastampa.it

«Su, adesso basta con le sciocchezze. Io stimo Mario Draghi, lo sanno tutti. E tutti si ricordano che lo portai io al vertice della Banca Centrale Europea nel giugno 2011. Però adesso finiamola con questa storia che siamo stati noi a farlo fuori e a cacciarlo dal governo…».

È ora di pranzo, e nella calura di Villa Grande la voce del Cavaliere risuona forte e chiara come non si sentiva da tempo. Al telefono, Silvio Berlusconi ha qualche sassolino dalla scarpa che si vuole togliere, il giorno dopo la “Vergogna”, come ha titolato la Stampa di questa mattina: avevamo la migliore riserva della Repubblica alla guida del Paese, orgoglio e vanto per l’Italia nel mondo, e siamo riusciti a bruciare pure quella.

Protagonisti della “political assassination” sono stati, in combutta, i capi-bastone della curva ultrà gialloverde, quelli che stravinsero le elezioni del 2018: Giuseppe Conte ha innescato la miccia per conto dei Cinque Stelle, Matteo Salvini l’ha fatta esplodere mettendo la firma della Lega.

Ma stavolta c’è di peggio: la novità è che ad aggregarsi alla congiura dei “Draghicidi” si è aggiunto anche il padre-padrone di Forza Italia. Che invece di bagnare le polveri, le ha infiammate. Com’è stato possibile?

«Ecco, facciamo un po’ di chiarezza…», risponde Berlusconi dalla sua magione romana, dove in questi giorni il centrodestra ha bivaccato a più riprese per venire a capo - senza riuscirci, se non al prezzo di sacrificare SuperMario - della crisi più pazza del mondo.

«Io ho letto il titolo del suo giornale, vergogna, ha scritto, ma noi non dobbiamo vergognarci di nulla. Noi non abbiamo buttato giù il governo. Draghi si è buttato giù da solo, prima con le cose che ha detto in aula, poi con le decisioni successive!».

Ma come? La non-fiducia sul termovalorizzatore l’hanno decisa i grillini la settimana scorsa, e la non-fiducia alla mozione Casini l’hanno decisa insieme Forza Italia e Lega ieri... Il Cavaliere la vede in un altro modo: «Senta, io ieri ho parlato con tutti. Ho chiamato il presidente della Repubblica Mattarella e il presidente del Consiglio Draghi, e a tutti e due ho letto il testo della nostra risoluzione. Nessuno dei due ha sollevato obiezioni.

Lì dentro non c’era scritto mandiamo a casa Draghi, ma il contrario. Noi ci eravamo già meravigliati per il fatto che Draghi la settimana scorsa aveva ribadito che questo governo non esiste senza i Cinque Stelle. Ma l’abbiamo seguito sulla sua stessa linea.

Poiché i grillini vogliono uscire, ne prendiamo atto e facciamo subito un Draghi bis, senza di loro, e cambiando alcuni ministri. Questo gli ho detto: ripartiamo, e andiamo avanti. Bastava che Draghi accettasse, e oggi sarebbe tutto un altro film…».

Ancorché romano, l’Uomo di Arcore è un fiume in piena. Ma come si fa a pensare che Super Mario, dopo i calci che aveva tirato nei denti ai partiti, avrebbe potuto accettare un Draghi bis alle condizioni imposte dal centrodestra, cioè un rimpastone che presupponesse magari anche la fuoriuscita di ministri come Lamorgese e Speranza?

“Premesso che non abbiamo mai parlato di nomi, io le rispondo certo che avrebbe potuto, per il bene del Paese. Ma non l’ha fatto, e la responsabilità è sua, non nostra”. A Draghi non faranno piacere, queste parole… «Capisco, ma le confesso che sono rimasto davvero perplesso per i suoi comportamenti. Anche questa mattina alla Camera avrebbe ancora potuto ricucire tutto. In fondo aveva preso la fiducia con 95 voti al Senato…».

Ma pensare a una retromarcia, dopo quello che era successo ieri a Palazzo Madama, sarebbe stato davvero troppo… «Sì, ma solo per un motivo – risponde secco Berlusconi – e cioè che lui aveva già deciso tutto. Lo sanno tutti che non ne poteva più, lo sanno tutti che ne aveva le scatole piene.

Dimettersi era una sua volontà precisa, a prescindere da quello che avrebbero fatto, detto e votato i partiti. Vuole che le riveli un’indiscrezione?». Il Cavaliere non resiste: «Sa cos’ha detto Draghi a un comune amico? Basta, non ne posso più, qui mi fanno lavorare il doppio di quanto lavoravo alla Bce…».

La maldicenza? Il venticello della calunnia? Vai a sapere. Certo è che nel “day after”, quando fatti, opinioni e mercati dimostrano che l’Italia è ripiombata nel caos, la Bce ha chiuso l’ombrello e noi non abbiamo più il suo ex governatore a proteggerci, il centrodestra anche agli occhi di un’opinione pubblica sconcertata ha un disperato bisogno di cancellare le impronte digitali dalla “scena del crimine”.

Ma poi, dopo quello che è successo, di che centrodestra parliamo? Anche questo è stato uno strappo, stavolta interno a quella metà del campo. Berlusconi, che in questi tre anni ha cercato di rivestirsi con i nobili panni dello statista, conservatore europeo e moderato, responsabile e repubblicano, alla fine si è fatto trascinare sulla via del Papeete dal Capitano leghista.

E qui il Cavaliere ha un sussulto, si indigna, non ci sta: «Eh no, questo non lo voglio neanche sentir dire! Ma secondo lei se mettiamo vicino Berlusconi e Salvini, chi prevale tra i due per competenza, esperienza, cultura e savoir-faire? Dai su, non scherziamo. Io non sono affatto spinto da Salvini. Il centrodestra sono io…».

Il Patriarca non accetta il suo autunno. Anzi, ha già detto e ripete che è pronto a candidarsi. Tanto ormai si va a votare. «Anche su questo ho qualche perplessità – aggiunge – ho visto che il Capo dello Stato sta pensando a una delle ultime due domeniche di settembre. Non sono convinto: che facciamo, una campagna elettorale di due-tre settimane? Troppo poco, non va bene…».

Perché una cosa è sicura: lui la campagna elettorale la farà. È pronto a candidarsi al Senato, il Tempio dal quale fu “cacciato”, lui sì, in virtù della legge Severino, dopo la condanna definitiva per frode fiscale. Tornare a Palazzo Madama ha dunque il sapore della rivincita. Magari, chissà, in cuor suo ha persino l’illusione di esserne eletto presidente, benché dopo la Casellati sia un assurdo peccato di “ubris”.

Ma insomma. È anche sicuro che Forza Italia, con lui risceso in campo, possa arrivare al 20 per cento. Volontà di potenza o delirio di onnipotenza? Più la seconda, a occhio e croce. Anche perché, nel frattempo, il partito azzurro perde i pezzi. Gelmini e Brunetta annunciano l’addio.

E qui il Cavaliere abbassa il tono di voce. Sembra quasi rattristato: «A queste persone ho dato tutto. Non mi merito che facciano questo. La Gelmini, poi… Ricordo che se ne voleva andare già ai tempi di Monti. Ma comunque… Non mi merito nemmeno che queste persone, andandosene, dicano quelle cose: ‘Forza Italia non è più la stessa, Berlusconi è diventato un’altra persona…’.

Tutte sciocchezze. Sono loro che sono cambiati, non io. Sono loro che mancano di riconoscenza nei miei confronti. Ma le dico io una cosa, e la dico anche e soprattutto a loro: non hanno futuro. E non lo sostiene nemmeno Silvio Berlusconi, lo dimostrano i fatti di questi anni: guardi che fine hanno fatto, tutti quelli che sono usciti da Forza Italia… Perché la verità, alla fine, è questa: tutti quelli che mi lasciano non hanno futuro, punto e basta». La telefonata finisce così.

Da Villa Grande si sente in sottofondo una voce femminile che chiama la servitù: «Attenzione, il cane ha fatto la cacca sul tappeto…». Nella testa resta solo una domanda sospesa: e Silvio? Silvio, seduto sul Carroccio a fianco a Matteo, lanciato all’inseguimento di Giorgia e dei suoi Fratelli? Questa livorosa e litigiosa carovana destrorsa, che futuro ha?

Dialoghi platonici: Onorevoli italiani… Brava gente!

Platone: 

Mio sempre amato Fedone! Che mai ti è successo dato che ti scorgo così depresso, affranto, senza energia…

Fedone: 

Grande e Illuminato maestro! Forse voi non avete seguito le vicende del Parlamento italiano che hanno visto la fucilazione sul campo di un italiano, rara avis, rispettato ad ogni livello internazionale e eliminato da una accolita congrega di ignobili manutengoli della bassa politica italiana… 

Platone: 

Se alludi alla defenestrazione di super Mario Draghi certo che l'ho vista, e sono convinto che si tratta di una fulgida giornata da iscrivere negli annali della storia italiana…

Fedone: 

Illustre e venerabile grande maestro, constato che la vostra tradizionale inclinazione verso la destra vi porta ad apprezzare quanto fatto al primo ministro italiano. Forse non avete visto i commenti della stampa internazionale tutti orientati alla domanda: ma che diavolo stanno facendo gli italiani immersi in una sorta di cupio dissolvi…

Platone: 

Nessun dubbio da parte mia che Mario Draghi sia conosciuto per essere un super tecnico, un super banchiere, un super addestrato a sopravvivere nei frangenti della politica economica e finanziaria internazionale. Ma è proprio questa sua intangibile capacità di essere il primo dei primi che ha rotto le scatole, come dite voi miei amati studenti, alla maggior parte dei professionisti politici italiani.

Fedone: 

I professionisti politici italiani sono in gran parte mezze calzette e cialtroni proiettati all'interno delle aule parlamentari dalla insana capacità degli elettori italiani di seguire le mode e farsi prendere per il culo dai pifferai del momento…e questo annientando la serieta' e capacita' di quelli che fanno politica ancora in maniera onesta e leale.

Platone: 

Come sei rude mio dolce virgulto e la tua volgarità mi è motivo di grande emozione. Tu certamente dimentichi che il meraviglioso popolo italiano, tra le tante conquiste e le eccellenze culturali, scientifiche, artistiche, è il creatore della commedia dell'arte. E tu dovresti ricordare che i personaggi che si agitano su un palcoscenico lo fanno senza seguire un preciso copione ma inventando la parte al momento. Poi è arrivato Shakespeare che ha ribaltato il tutto obbligando gli artisti a recitare secondo le sue divine invenzioni sceniche.

Fedone: 

La decapitazione di super Mario è la conclusione di un processo instaurato da un para politico inventato, al secolo Giuseppe Conte, uno che pur di rimanere a galleggiare alla testa di un movimento ormai completamente sfarinato per le cospicue fughe di tanti iscritti, ha acceso la miccia ad una bomba micidiale che scoppiando ha fatto spazio alla Lega di Salvini in crisi di identità e al fatiscente partito del vecchio satiro per eccellenza, Silvio Berlusconi, alla ricerca di uno splendore perduto.

Platone: 

Ecco, lo hai nominato, il sublime Silvio. Fino a ieri il Cavaliere è stato prodigo di apprezzamenti quasi intimi nei confronti di super Mario Draghi. Poi con un voltafaccia repentino, tipico anche dei suoi comportamenti da imprenditore di grande successo, ha pensato bene di metterglielo (come dite voi giovani?) all'amato super Mario abbracciandosi di nuovo con quel Salvini che non ha mai amato ma di cui ha estremo bisogno. Il tutto a favore della Giorgia Meloni che, ne sono convinto massimamente, sarà presto il primo capo di governo italiano donna.

Fedone: 

Volete farmi capire che il rigurgito berlusconiano è dovuto alla sua libidine mai compressa di tornare a Palazzo Chigi? Ma vi rendete conto che questo personaggio ha 86 anni, una salute molto incerta, numerosi processi ancora attivi contro di lui, e via citando… Ci sarebbe da morire dalle risate, se non fosse che questo vetusto parlamentare ha tagliato le gambe ad una Italia che grazie al super Mario era riuscita in pochi mesi ad attestarsi al vertice dell'interesse e della stima internazionale.

Platone: 

Mio bellissimo Fedone, ma quanto sei eccessivo nelle tue considerazioni. L'Italia resta in cima ai pensieri di tanta gente che ha avuto l'onore e il piacere di trascorrere qualche settimana in quella meravigliosa penisola o che vorrebbe disperatamente averne la possibilità. Bando alla tua negatività e al tuo pessimismo: guarda il bicchiere mezzo pieno. Si andrà alle elezioni e una grande partecipazione ai seggi è già annunciata annullando la terribile percentuale di astenuti che sta caratterizzando le consultazioni elettorali italiane. Ma non solo italiane.

Fedone:

Si' d'accordo, la voce agli elettori. Ma se siamo arrivati a questo punto di disgregazione politica e parlamentare, la colpa è proprio di quei milioni di votanti che si sono fatti prendere per il naso dai millantatori del momento. Il problema vero è che la democrazia italiana, al pari purtroppo di quella americana, ha le gomme bucate. I prossimi mesi, visti qui dall'Olimpo, non promettono nulla di buono: energia, inflazione e prossima recessione, copertura sanitaria a fronte dell'intensificarsi dei contagi a causa di virus noti e ignoti, la sicura tirata del freno a mano da parte della Unione Europea per quanto riguarda i regali di decine di miliardi assegnati all'Italia perché mettesse qualche toppa al suo sistema economico, industriale, strutturale.

Platone: 

Caro Fedone, mi hai fatto venire una grande acidità di stomaco con la tua malagrazia. Ti lascio per andare a gustare uno splendido gelato alla gelateria italiana dell'Olimpo. Anche in questo gli italiani sono al top. E comunque devo concludere dicendo che sono felice perché dopo tanto sinistrume finalmente anche in Italia riuscirà a splendere il sole della destra, vera e indefettibile. Giorgia, Giorgia "eia, eia, alala'".

(Oscar)

______________________________________________________

Amico mio, ma te la immagini già la foto che verrebbe pubblicata, se prevalessero gli italiEni sugli italiani, di uno scompartimento di treno con insieme non più Draghi, Macron e Sholtz ma Meloni, Orbàn e La Russa?

Sandro (Roma)

Come ci vedono: Italy’s Draghi resigns, spelling trouble for nation, Europe (AP)

By NICOLE WINFIELD



ROME (AP) — Italian Premier Mario Draghi resigned Thursday after his ruling coalition fell apart, dealing a destabilizing blow to the country and Europe at a time of severe economic uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Draghi tendered his resignation to President Sergio Mattarella during a morning meeting at the Quirinale Palace. Mattarella, who rejected a similar resignation offer from the premier last week, “took note” of the new one and asked Draghi’s government to remain on in a caretaker capacity, the president’s office said. While the president could see if a new parliamentary majority was possible, his office indicated that he would dissolve the legislature and call early elections.

The turmoil couldn’t have come at a worse time for the eurozone’s third-largest economy. Like many countries, Italy is facing soaring prices for everything from food to household utilities as a result of Moscow’s invasion. On top of that, it is also suffering through a prolonged drought that is threatening crops and struggling to implement its EU-financed pandemic recovery program.

Any instability in Italy could ripple out to the rest of Europe, also facing economic trouble, and deprive the EU of a respected statesman as it seeks to keep up a united front against Russia.

Draghi, who is not a politician but a former central banker, was brought in 17 months ago to navigate the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. But his government of national unity imploded Wednesday after members of his uneasy coalition of right, left and populists rebuffed his appeal to band back together to finish the Italian Parliament’s natural term.

Instead, the center-right Forza Italia and League parties and the populist 5-Star Movement boycotted a confidence vote in the Senate, a clear sign they were done with Draghi.

“Thank you for all the work done together in this period,” Draghi told the lower Chamber of Deputies on Thursday morning before going to see Mattarella. Clearly moved by the applause he received there, he repeated a quip that even central bank chiefs have hearts.

Dubbed “Super Mario” for helping to lead the eurozone out of its debt crisis when he was head of the European Central Bank, Draghi played a similar calming role in Italy in recent months. His very presence helped reassure financial markets about the debt-laden nation’s public finances, and he managed to keep the country on track with economic reforms that the EU made a condition of its 200 billion-euro (-dollar) pandemic recovery package.

He was a staunch supporter of Ukraine and became a leading voice in Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion — one of the issues that contributed to his downfall since the 5-Stars rankled at Italian military help for Ukraine.

Domestic concerns also played a role. The 5-Stars, the biggest vote-getter in the 2018 national election, chafed for months that their priorities of a basic income and minimum salary, among others, were ignored. The final straw? A decision to give Rome’s mayor extraordinary powers to manage the capital’s garbage crisis — powers that had been denied the party’s Virginia Raggi when she was mayor.

While he could not keep his fractious coalition together, Draghi appeared to still have broad support among the Italian public, many of whom have taken to the streets or signed open letters in recent weeks to plead with him to stay on.

Italian newspapers on Thursday were united in their outrage at the surreal outcome, given the difficult moment that Italy and Europe are navigating.

“Shame,” headlined La Stampa on the front page. “Italy Betrayed,” said La Repubblica.

Nicola Nobile, associate director at Oxford Economics, warned Draghi’s departure and the prospect that the country would not have a fully functioning government for months could exacerbate economic turbulence in Italy, which investors worry is carrying too much debt and which was already looking at a marked slowdown for the second half of the year.

Mattarella had tapped Draghi to pull Italy out of the pandemic last year. But last week, the 5-Stars boycotted a confidence vote tied to a bill aimed at helping Italians endure the cost-of-living crisis, prompting Draghi to offer to resign a first time.

Mattarella rejected that offer and asked Draghi to return to Parliament to brief lawmakers on the situation. The premier did so on Wednesday, appealing to party leaders to listen to the calls for unity from ordinary Italians.

“You don’t have to give the answer to me. You have to give it to all Italians,” he told lawmakers.

While the next steps were unclear, Mattarella seemed likely to dissolve Parliament after a period of consultations, paving the way for an election as soon as late September or early October. The legislature’s current five-year term is due to expire in 2023.

Mattarella planned to meet with the presidents of the upper and lower chambers of Parliament later Thursday, his office said. The announcement cited the article in the Italian Constitution that says the president can dissolve Parliament.

Opinion polls have indicated the center-left Democratic Party and the right-wing Brothers of Italy party, which had remained in the opposition, are neck-and-neck.

Democrat leader Enrico Letta said Parliament had betrayed Italy.

“Let Italians show at the ballot that they are smarter than their representatives,” he tweeted.

The Brothers of Italy has long been allied with the center-right Forza Italia of ex-Premier Silvio Berlusconi and the League of Matteo Salvini, suggesting that a center-right alliance would likely prevail in any election and could propel Brothers’ leader Giorgia Meloni to become Italy’s first female premier.

Meloni, who has been gunning for an early election since before the crisis erupted, was triumphant.

“The will of the people is expressed in one way: by voting. Let’s give hope and strength back to Italy,” she said.

Some commentators noted that Draghi’s government, which has been among Europe’s strongest supporters of Ukraine, collapsed in large part thanks to political leaders who previously had ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Berlusconi has vacationed with Putin and considered him a friend; Salvini opposed EU sanctions against Russia after its 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula; and then there’s 5-Star leader Giuseppe Conte’s opposition to Italian military aid to Ukraine.

After 5-Star senators boycotted last week’s vote, Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio accused Conte of giving Putin a gift.

Dividere politica industriale e energetica è fuori dalla storia

Il caso francese – I (troppi) centri decisionali per la politica industriale

Articolo di Romano Prodi su Il Messaggero 

La riorganizzazione produttiva globale, iniziata cinque anni fa con l’aumento delle tensioni fra Cina e Stati Uniti e proseguita in conseguenza del Covid, non potrà che ricevere un’ulteriore accelerazione per effetto della guerra in Ucraina.

Non si tratta certo della fine della globalizzazione. Tuttavia, come previsto e come ragionevole, le grandi imprese tendono a diminuire i rischi derivanti dalle crescenti tensioni globali, estendendo la loro presenza in ciascuna delle tre grandi aree produttive. Stati Uniti, Cina e Unione Europea stanno infatti già operando per essere sempre più autosufficienti nelle produzioni più delicate.

Si tratta di un processo destinato a protrarsi nel tempo ma che ha già cominciato a manifestare i propri effetti.

E’ quindi utile riflettere sulle importanti scelte strategiche che riguardano l’Unione Europea, e quindi l’Italia.

Le decisioni di investimento più importanti sono state prese dalle imprese americane nei settori ritenuti vitali per il nostro futuro industriale e nei quali l’Europa non ha finora dimostrato capacità di leadership mondiale: i semiconduttori e le batterie e, quindi, le auto-elettriche.

Nel campo dei componenti elettronici l’americana Intel ha iniziato la costruzione di un gigantesco stabilimento di chips in Germania e una decisione analoga è stata presa da Tesla, leader mondiale di auto elettriche di alto prezzo.

Investimenti di minore dimensione sono previsti da Intel in Francia e di quantità sostanzialmente trascurabile in Italia, anche se un’accurata analisi delle convenienze economiche avrebbe dovuto dirottare verso il nostro paese una parte massiccia di questi nuovi investimenti.

Il costo del lavoro in Italia è infatti incomparabilmente inferiore e la produttività di città che, come Torino o Ivrea, hanno antica esperienza in questi settori, non è certamente inferiore a quella della Germania.

Nel settore delle batterie (che sono il motore dell’auto elettrica) le decisioni di investimento si sono moltiplicate.

La Volkswagen ha optato per sei nuovi stabilimenti, localizzati in Germania, Ungheria, Repubblica Ceca e Spagna mentre, nella strategia della stessa Stellantis, la pur tanto ancora attesa decisione della costruzione di uno stabilimento di batterie a Termoli assume un ruolo sostanzialmente periferico.

Anche la Francia si è inserita con autorità nel processo di attrazione delle imprese straniere. Sei giorni fa si è tenuto a Parigi, diretto da Macron e con la presenza di venti ministri, l’incontro annuale dal significativo titolo “Choose France.”

In questa occasione è stato reso noto che quattordici imprese estere avevano scelto di portare nuovi investimenti in Francia con un impegno di 6,7 miliardi di Euro, garantendo l’assunzione di 4.000 nuovi dipendenti.



Nella stessa occasione veniva annunciato un accordo fra STMicroelectronics e l’American Global Foundries per un investimento di 5,7Miliardi in una fabbrica dei più avanzati componenti elettronici da localizzare in Francia, e precisamente a Crolles, dove la STM ha uno dei suoi maggiori centri produttivi e di ricerca.

Come scrive Le Monde, il negoziato per questo investimento, definito il più importante dopo quello del settore nucleare, è stato durissimo. In esso lo stesso Macron ha giocato un ruolo determinante anche nei confronti della quantità dell’intervento finanziario del governo francese. Una quantità che resta ancora sconosciuta, anche se, da parte americana, è stata ritenuta determinante e, quindi, non può che essere cospicua.

Riguardo a quest’ultimo evento si impone l’obbligo di una particolare riflessione da parte di noi italiani, in quanto la STM non è una società unicamente francese, ma vede come azionisti determinanti, in assoluta parità, il governo italiano e il governo francese, con il 13,75% ciascuno delle azioni.

Fa quindi una certa impressione non vedere nominata l’Italia in nessuna parte delle trattative e, soprattutto, vedere nominato Crolles come futuro punto di riferimento dell’innovazione dell’intera STM, tanto da irritare i rappresentanti sindacali degli altri insediamenti francesi.

Tutte queste considerazioni ci obbligano a riflettere sulla scarsa presenza dell’Italia in questo grande processo di ristrutturazione.

Siamo infatti il secondo paese europeo per fatturato dell’industria, abbiamo costi del lavoro molto inferiori ai nostri maggiori concorrenti e esportiamo migliaia di giovani specialisti che contribuiscono a rendere possibili gli investimenti negli altri paesi.

Le spiegazioni della nostra assenza sono ovviamente tante, dalla mancanza delle grandi imprese alla fragilità dei governi, dal lento funzionamento della burocrazia a quello della giustizia.

A questo dovranno evidentemente rispondere le necessarie riforme. Nel processo di ristrutturazione in corso, la nostra assenza riflette anche, e forse soprattutto, la mancanza di un interlocutore unico che, come viene dichiarato in Francia, si occupi della futura “sovranità industriale” del nostro paese.

La nociva frammentazione delle competenze fra il Ministero dell’Economia e finanze, il Ministero dello Sviluppo economico e il Ministero della Transizione ecologica, a cui si aggiunge il ruolo ancora indefinito della Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, rendono molto difficile la necessaria interlocuzione del nuovo governo nel momento in cui vengono prese le decisioni determinanti per il futuro del nostro paese.

Per fare un solo esempio, dividere la politica industriale dalla politica energetica mi sembra oggi fuori dalla storia. Tante volte ho fatto appello per avere un forte interlocutore unico nelle grandi decisioni di politica industriale.

Oggi, anche se tardivamente, questo passo, che tutti i protagonisti europei hanno già compiuto, mi sembra un indifferibile priorità dell’auspicabile nuovo governo Draghi.

Dato che il grande progetto europeo si chiama Next Generation, credo che il nostro primo obbligo sia quello di garantire un futuro alla Nuova Generazione.

Scalfari, Caracciolo e Orlando una sera del 1974

Una sera dell'ottobre 1974.

Telefonata al dottor Luigi Orlando, presidente della Società Metallurgica italiana (SMI).

"Buonasera dottore, mi hanno chiamato dalla segreteria del Dott. Eugenio Scalfari dell'Espresso che avrebbe piacere se lei potesse accettare un invito per una cena informale, ristretta. Suggeriscono una trattoria toscana dalle parti di via Veneto. Insieme a Scalfari sarà presente solo il principe Caracciolo. Suggeriscono, sempre che le sia possibile, la sera del 22 ottobre, data del consiglio direttivo della Confindustria, sapendo che lei sara' a Roma per quella occasione…"

Nota per il lettore: a quei tempi il vostro redattore era responsabile della sede legale della SMI e assistente del dottor Orlando, vicepresidente over all della associazione degli imprenditori privati italiani. 

Eugenio Scalfari era il fondatore dell'Espresso il più importante periodico italiano del momento.

Il mio presidente il giorno dopo mi fece sapere che accettava l'invito di Scalfari ma avrebbe avuto al suo fianco il sottoscritto.

Il mio lavoro di responsabile della sede legale della SMI richiedeva che assistessi il mio boss nei numerosi incontri con parlamentari, esponenti del giornalismo, dirigenti di attività istituzionali.

Però quella richiesta di incontro da parte di Scalfari mi aveva messo un po' in apprensione, conoscendo quanto il suddetto fosse abile non solo come grande giornalista ma anche come imprenditore editoriale a tessere reti e contatti che talvolta avrebbero potuto essere dismessi in un batter di ciglia.

Orlando non apparteneva alla categoria dei grandi imprenditori che fanno dei ritardi agli appuntamenti una sorta di medaglia della loro importanza.

Arrivammo puntuali alle nove nel ristorante toscano dove in una saletta riservata ci stavano attendendo Scalfari e il principe Caracciolo.

Dopo i soliti salamelecchi d'uso Scalfari, tra una portata e l'altra appena scalfite dai presenti (sottoscritto compreso con grande dolore) illustrò a Orlando il progetto della realizzazione di un quotidiano assolutamente originale sia nella forma che nei contenuti che avrebbe dovuto riempire il vuoto lasciato dall'informazione rivolta alla vasta componente della media borghesia italiana, ma non solo, stretta tra quella  comunista e quella democristiana.

Il quotidiano di Scalfari e Caracciolo avrebbe potuto chiamarsi Repubblica con lo scopo di agglutinare il consenso degli elettori di ispirazione socialista o comunque di centro sinistra.

Scalfari e Caracciolo erano bene a conoscenza che Luigi Orlando rappresentava la più antica famiglia imprenditoriale italiana che aveva finanziato addirittura la spedizione dei Mille partita da Quarto con due navi su una delle quali era imbarcato un Orlando.

Cavour aveva potuto contare sulla SMI per la creazione di stabilimenti destinati alla produzione di munizionamento  militare per affrancare la neonata Italia da quell'Austria contro la quale si sarebbe scatenata la guerra.

Scalfari concluse il breve incontro facendo capire esplicitamente al suo interlocutore fiorentino che contava sull'appoggio della sua azienda per contribuire a far nascere il progetto Repubblica.

____________________________________________________

Molti anni più tardi, divenuto responsabile dei rapporti con i media dell'Iri, mi sono trovato talvolta a dialogare, si fa per dire, con Scalfari per conto del professor Prodi a causa di articoli sensazionalistici che mettevano a repentaglio attività di largo respiro e di grande importanza economica messe in essere dal Professore di Bologna.

Tanto per fare un esempio: titolo tra virgolette su una presunta dichiarazione di Prodi mai fatta.

Episodio questo risolto con una quasi risata telefonica di Scalfari che disse al presidente dell'Iri che non era il caso di arrabbiarsi per quel virgolettato, un peccatuccio veniale per interessare il lettore.

Questo era lo stile maramaldo del giornale in quei tempi.

Uno stile senza dubbio di grande successo tenendo conto del fatto che Repubblica superò ben presto in termini di copie vendute lo stesso Corriere della Sera.

Oscar

___________________________________________________

Buongiorno Oscar
ho letto con grande interesse il tuo « pezzo » su Scalfari che ho trovato ricco di dettagli sulla personalità del grande giornalista.
Ricordo il primo numero de La Repubblica nel gennaio 1976 quando lavoravo a Roma pochi mesi prima del mio trasferimento a New York. 
Il giornale mi piacque subito anche per il formato all’epoca decisamente innovativo in Italia e per il modo di raccontare e commentare i fatti.   Ne sono rimasto lettore e lo ho seguito negli alti e nei bassi del suo percorso avvertendo che occasionalmente si allontanava dallo spirito che informava la creatura pensata da Scalfari.
Non mi è chiaro dal tuo articolo se il dr Orlando si rese disponibile al finanziamento suggerito durante la cena nella trattoria Toscana a Roma.
Cordiali saluti
Carlo (Ginevra)

___________________________________________________________

Ciao Carlo,

Orlando si rese disponibile a dare qualcosa nella tradizione di parsimonia della SMI.

Quanto a Scalfari e' stato un grande personaggio con molte luci e molte ombre.

Insopportabile la santificazione che ne viene fatta.

Cordiali saluti,

Oscar

_________________________________________________________________

Oscar 

sono d’accordo sulle luci e sulle ombre …

Purtroppo la santificazione di personaggi è una tradizione tutta italiana indipendentemente se meritata oppure no.  Spesso non meritata  !!!

Un abbraccio 

Carlo

Si mette male per Biden

As Faith Flags in U.S. Government, Many Voters Want to Upend the System
July 13, 2022
NYT


A majority of American voters across nearly all demographics and ideologies believe their system of government does not work, with 58 percent of those interviewed for a New York Times/Siena College poll saying that the world’s oldest independent constitutional democracy needs major reforms or a complete overhaul.

The discontent among Republicans is driven by their widespread, unfounded doubts about the legitimacy of the nation’s elections. For Democrats, it is the realization that even though they control the White House and Congress, it is Republicans, joined with their allies in gerrymandered state legislatures and the Supreme Court, who are achieving long-sought political goals.

For Republicans, the distrust is a natural outgrowth of former President Donald J. Trump’s domination of the party and, to a large degree, American politics. After seven years in which he relentlessly attacked the country’s institutions, a broad majority of Republicans share his views on the 2020 election and its aftermath: Sixty-one percent said he was the legitimate winner, and 72 percent described the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as a protest that got out of hand.

The survey results come as the House committee investigating Jan. 6 revealed new evidence this week that Mr. Trump and his aides had a hand in directing the mob to the Capitol to try to maintain his hold on the executive branch.

Among all voters, 49 percent said the Capitol riot was an attempt to overthrow the government. Another 55 percent said Mr. Trump’s actions after the 2020 election had threatened American democracy. As with so many other issues, voters saw the riot through the same partisan lens as other issues.

Seventy-six percent of Republican voters said Mr. Trump had simply been exercising his right to contest his loss to Joseph R. Biden Jr. Asked if Mr. Trump had committed crimes while contesting the election, 89 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of independent voters said yes, while 80 percent of Republicans said he had not.

“If I’d have been Trump, I’d have been very pissed off about the whole situation,” said Charles Parrish, 71, a retired firefighter from Evans, Ga.

Among Democrats, 84 percent said the Capitol attack was an attempt to overthrow the government and 92 percent said Mr. Trump threatened American democracy.

Democrats’ pessimism about the future stems from their party’s inability to protect abortion rights, pass sweeping gun control measures and pursue other liberal priorities in the face of Republican opposition. Self-described liberals were more likely than other Democrats to have lost trust in government and more likely to say voting did not make a difference.

Americans’ bipartisan cynicism about government signals a striking philosophical shift: For generations, Democrats campaigned on the idea that government was a force for good, while Republicans sought to limit it. Now, the polling shows, the number of Americans in both parties who believe their government is capable of responding to voters’ concerns has shrunk.

In one indicator of how Americans’ perception of the government has transformed, the poll found that Fox News viewers were more optimistic than any other demographic about the country’s ability to get on the right track over the next decade: Seventy-two percent were hopeful for such a scenario.

Ray Townley, 58, a retiree from Ozark, Ark., and a regular Fox News viewer, said he was very optimistic about the country’s future because he anticipated major changes in Washington.

“They’re going to vote the Democrats out,” he said.

More than half of all voters surveyed, 53 percent, said the American political system was too divided to solve the nation’s problems, an increase from 40 percent in a Times/Siena poll from October 2020. The sentiment is now most acute among Black voters and the youngest voters.

The lack of faith is starkest among the young, who have little to no memory of a time when American politics didn’t function as a zero-sum affair. Nearly half — 48 percent — of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 29 said voting did not make a difference in how their government operates.

Mitch Toher, a 22-year-old independent from Austin, said there was little reason to vote because the country would not function as long as its government operated under the two-party system.

Mr. Toher, who works in information technology, said he was not optimistic that the American political system or its elected officials were responsive enough to address the needs of young voters. Voting for either Democrats or Republicans, he said, would do little to change things in his life for the better.

“The largest divide is not necessarily left versus right, but those that are generationally old versus young,” he said. “I don’t think those types of changes are coming any time soon, or at least forthcoming in my point in lifetime.”

Rosantina Goforth, 55, of Wagoner, Okla., said officials at every level of government needed to be removed and replaced with people “who believe in the United States.”

Ms. Goforth, who is retired from the Army and said she got her news from Christian news programs, is one of the Republicans who falsely believe Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. Voting, she said, has little bearing on how the government operates.

“Our say really doesn’t matter,” she said. “I know Trump won that election. It’s a given. He won that election. But somehow or another, you know, people got paid and votes were mismanaged.”

Some voters expressed frustration with a political system they saw as ill equipped to address problems from across the ideological spectrum. Felix Gibbs, 66, a retired forklift operator from Niagara Falls, N.Y., said the government was not prepared to solve the two issues he saw as most pressing: illegal immigration and a lack of universal health coverage.

“I’m sure there are other issues I can bring up that will show that our political system is not working,” said Mr. Gibbs, who said he voted for Mr. Trump in 2020 and would do so again.

The Supreme Court, which has long guarded its reputation as above politics, is widely viewed as a political body, the poll found. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said the justices’ rulings were based on their political views, not on the Constitution, a belief shared by 88 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans.

Voters who backed Mr. Biden in 2020 said they were dispirited by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Mr. Trump.

Elizabeth Thiel, 40, an administrative assistant from Lilburn, Ga., who was among the millions of suburban women who helped propel Mr. Biden to victory in 2020, said the country needed to end lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. Ms. Thiel said the court’s recent decisions on gun control and abortion rights had undermined the popular will of the country.

“We see it in the way that they vote for and against things, and especially with the Roe versus Wade thing a few weeks ago,” she said. “It’s just not right. I mean, it’s just not right.”

Interviews with voters who were polled revealed chasms in American society that stretched far beyond policy debates in Washington and extended to cultural issues that often dominate news coverage.

Conservatives expressed opposition to proposed gun control measures and gains in rights for transgender people, while liberals said they could not believe that the country’s civil rights advances had moved so slowly and that the Supreme Court had ended the federal right to an abortion.

Rachel Bernhardt, 62, a legal assistant from Silver Spring, Md., said her family had been involved in progressive politics since her grandfather served as an economist in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. Her parents participated in civil rights demonstrations in Washington, she recalled.

Now, she said, she has become disillusioned with the difficulty of persuading the American government to respond to what people want.

Mr. Trump’s election, Ms. Bernhardt said, revealed to her the scope of American racism and the extent to which Republican elected officials would cater to it.

“You don’t have to necessarily be a liberal Democrat to be a good person,” she said. “But what I had no idea until I was much older was how many people still believe in the Confederacy or, you know, just — if I saw a Confederate flag, I’d just assume that that person was some kind of mentally ill psycho.”

The diminution of trust in the American political system has come during a moment of vast retrenchment of local news outlets. A quarter of all newspapers — more than 2,500 — have closed since 2005, cable news viewership has sharply fallen and more Americans are getting their news from social media. The poll found that just 34 percent of voters were very or somewhat confident that major newspapers and television networks reported accurately and fairly about news and politics.

Just 7 percent of those polled said they got most of their news from a major national newspaper. Only 1 percent said they turned to a local newspaper. Among Republicans, 29 percent said Fox News was their primary news source.

The level of confidence in the mainstream media is lowest among voters who find their news through social media.

Jacqueline Beck-Manheimer, 58, is an independent who has voted for third-party candidates in recent presidential contests. She works at an employment services company in Albuquerque and said her news diet consisted of YouTube shows that presented stories they claim the mainstream media is ignoring, including the channel of Russell Brand, an actor who has become a prominent purveyor of coronavirus conspiracy theories.

Ms. Beck-Manheimer said she was upset about the Supreme Court’s rollback of abortion rights, members of Congress who took corporate campaign contributions, the increased size of the defense budget and profits that pharmaceutical companies made in selling coronavirus vaccines to the federal government.

The government’s problems would be easier to solve, she said, if the news media weren’t invested in sowing division among Americans.

“It’s the media who stokes the culture war,” she said. “It’s all a provocation to distract us from what what’s really going on, and what’s really going on is nothing but big businesses and their money.”

 January 6 (e la paura crescente di una guerra civile)

 

The latest hearing from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection focused on the links between former President Donald Trump and the far-right extremist groups that were at the vanguard of the violent effort to stop the transition of power and keep him in office, despite his election loss. The panel repeatedly highlighted a Trump tweet from December 2020 to make the case that the former President courted the extremists and saw them as his troops on the ground during the Capitol riot. The tweet claimed that it was "statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election," and said there would be a "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th." Trump infamously added, "Be there, will be wild!" The committee also unveiled evidence showing how Trump's call for his supporters to march to the Capitol had been planned in advance. CNN

Le deposizioni dei più stretti collaboratori dell'ex presidente Donald Trump stanno mettendo chiaramente in luce che gli episodi di terrorismo domestico del 6 gennaio 2021 non erano casuali ma pianificati da tempo a livello nazionale e benedetti, ma soprattutto, incitati dallo stesso inquilino della Casa Bianca.

Ed uno si chiede se non siano sufficienti e garantite prove per l'incriminazione di questo personaggio che si appresta a ricandidarsi per le prossime elezioni del 2024.

Le audizioni del comitato 6 gennaio sono un serial organizzato tecnicamente in maniera perfetta lasciando il campo soprattutto alle immagini e agli spezzoni degli interrogatori dei personaggi che si alternano alla tribuna di questo 'quasi' tribunale.

Previste altre audizioni di importanti collaboratori di Donald Trump.

Sono ormai decine di milioni gli spettatori che si sintonizzano sulle due ore di ogni episodio e sui rimbalzi che le televisioni propongono a chi, per ragioni professionali o altro, non ha potuto o voluto dedicare il suo tempo a questo show che mette in evidenza quanto la democrazia americana abbia corso un serio pericolo sotto la gestione di questo terribile personaggio che voleva e vorrebbe sradicare il sistema americano trasformandolo in una autocrazia o meglio dittatura.

La titubanza del ministro della giustizia di far proprie le prove indiscutibili scaturite fino ad ora nel corso delle "puntate" televisive è giustificata sia dalla necessità di aggiungere altre documentazioni alla lunga lista di incriminazioni che potrebbero essere addebitate al biscazziere che ha demolito le istituzioni americane nei quattro anni del suo mandato.

Ormai qui negli Stati Uniti si parla sempre più frequentemente del reale pericolo di una guerra civile.

Le componenti per scatenare questi eventi ci sono tutte: il terrore di larga parte dei bianchi di essere sopravanzati da altre minoranze etniche in continua ascesa numerica e potenziale; l'assoluta radicalizzazione della popolazione americana nella quale le possibilità di un dialogo e confronto civile e democratico sono scomparse; l'inflazione crescente che addenta il portafoglio dell'americano annientando di fatto il costante aumento dell'occupazione, il successo nel contenimento del Covid. A questo si aggiunga il terrore che sta salendo di temperatura per lo scatenamento di una terza guerra mondiale.

Sono questi e altri gli elementi che stanno rendendo la vita della società americana estremamente instabile se rapportata al prossimo futuro.

Oscar