TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | July, 2009

Washington Post’s Milbank: Clinton’s Drink is ‘Mad Bitch Beer’

By on 31 July 2009

–updated–

TM NOTE: Embarrassed, the Washington Post has pulled the video. Question is why they thought it was appropriate in the first place.

_________original post is below__________

If you want to know why Clinton supporters are so sensitive to media criticism of women (including Sarah Palin), I give you exhibit A from Dana Milbank. This is the crap we listened to throughout last year, but continues today.

As to Milbank, it makes me think of the Vanity Fair piece about Politico and something John Harris, now its editor in chief, said about the Post, someplace he used to work:

“The problem is not, for any of the three founders, merely that the newspaper business is broke, but that newspapers themselves, which so many people are arguing now need to be preserved, are busted: “The Post’s reputation was superior to its actual day-in-and-day-out achievement,” says Harris. “I don’t say that with any kind of malice. It’s not to disparage the Post, but it’s definitely true that a lot of the material was done with a shrug of the shoulders.”

Of course, Harris was talking about the newspaper side, but it seems that “shrug of the shoulders” attitude about online content seems to match the overall general strategy.

TM.com reader and frequent diarist over at In the News, NMP, nailed it: How much more evidence do we need to declare the venerable Washington Post of *Katharine Graham dead?!

The sitting Secretary of State should drink “Mad Bitch Beer.” Kind of answers that question, now doesn’t it?

* Spelling of Ms. Graham’s name has been corrected for posting.

Read full story · Comments are closed

DK Poll: 58% of Republicans Not Sure About Obama’s Birth

By on 31 July 2009

Here’s the breakdown:

Yes No Not sure
Dem 93 4 3
Rep 42 28 30
Ind 83 8 9

Photobucket

Anyone doubting the effectiveness of negative campaigning and swiftboating, please wake up and smell The Hunting of the President, the Barack Obama edition. It was launched and perfected during William Jefferson Clinton’s presidency, with some Democrats sucked into it, more than willing to marginalize a man who got us out of the last economic tank the Republicans put us in.

Luckily, a huge majority of the country’s population are sure about Pres. Obama.

So the birthers have hatched a plan b.

I’ve been watching the coverage of the birther crazies with amazed amusement. How the Republican Party, who used to be considered so politically adept and savvy at campaigning for the whole country, could be reduced to such mania illustrates the desperation among them. However, reading a column over at NRO today, their plan b became clear. Having lost the foundational Obama birth question when you look at the country as a whole, quickly regrouping, mainstream Republicans have decided to join in and change tracks. They see an opportunity in the 58%. So, yes, they believe Obama was born in Hawaii; now it’s about his lack of honesty about his life.

Compliments of the creative quackery of Andrew C. McCarthy over at NRO we get the full hyper-ventilating narrative. It begins with the obvious from the right. That there should be no doubt about Obama’s citizenship because after all, “if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?” Followed by the nut:

… The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.

… .. Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government.

… [...] Obama’s religious background also matters in terms of how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world. … ..

Call it the Middle East policy squeeze play, if you want, but that part in bold is the real crux of it, which renders us all in unchartered territory.

Mark Steyn dutifully helps out:

But do I think there’s something on the long-form birth certificate he doesn’t want us to see? Yes. That would seem entirely likely — and consistent with his modus operandi.

That sound you hear is William F. Buckley screaming from the grave.

Then there is the other objective, which centers on Obama’s Middle East policy, specific to Israel of course (and Iran), as the Republicans focus on what Obama’s “real” story could mean to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. A reach out to thinkers among them? Or maybe just to scare the fundamentalists into action?

The claim that Obama is someone with dual citizenship and loyalties, McCarthy’s intent is to question his ability to guide Middle East policy, because, as McCarthy hints, Obama’s religious background might impact “how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world.” Could it be more obvious? It’s code. Translation: Obama’s real religious leanings might shred our “special relationship” with Israel, or tilt us towards diplomacy with Iran.

Now, this journey to follow Republican thinking and their campaign to delegitimize Pres. Obama may seem pointless. But I’ve been studying this stuff for decades, including the lengths the wingnut fringe on talk radio will go to get their man by building grass roots voter efforts from the ground up. They build slowly, methodically, and entertain all manner of mania in a serious fashion until they’ve built an underground movement of activists that blankets the country through grass roots actions that start locally with people who all vote.

Hey, but it’s not just NRO. Politico’s Ben Smith is now officially a birther sympathizer:

With nearly a third of Republicans believing the theory, you can see why Republican politicians are inclined to treat it with some respect.

This is how Reagan’s southern strategy worked. And since the south leads the lunatic anti Obama fringe, with Bubba leading the birther band, all Republicans like McCarthy and the crew at NRO are doing is building on what has worked for them before. But with an African American President, Republicans have obviously weighed the odds and think this time it will be even easier.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Beware Mission Creep in Afghanistan

By on 31 July 2009
Photobucket
Bagram

It’s edging towards being official. Having supported Obama’s initial Afghanistan policy, it’s becoming abundantly clear that we’re edging closer to no man’s land on policy:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is preparing a new strategy that calls for major changes in the way U.S. and other NATO troops there operate, a vast increase in the size of Afghan security forces and an intensified military effort to root out corruption among local government officials, according to several people familiar with the contents of an assessment report that outlines his approach to the war.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama’s national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments. …

Let’s hope the “chilly reception at the White House” includes a definitive no to go along with it. That is unless McChrystal can make a conclusive case, including other strategy shifts currently happening in Afghanistan.

The article above follows the one yesterday on drones being retasked to hit Taliban, not al Qaeda, which is yet another shift in strategy since McChrystal came aboard. (Also see Peter Bergen’s June piece on drones, which he says have served a purpose in FATA.)

Barbara Starr on the McChrystal’s likely coming request, which will be made after the Afghan war review that’s due around August 14th, during the congressional recess:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is expected to ask the Obama administration for additional troops and equipment, according to a senior U.S. military official familiar with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s thinking. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s report on the war’s status will be delivered in August, the source says.

The request will be for troops and equipment for conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as more assets to deal with roadside bombs and explosives, said the official, who declined to be identified because McChrystal’s request has not been formally transmitted to the Pentagon.

Gates has signaled he’s open to an increase, but no one in the Administration has given signs about the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.

One of Obama’s primary reasons for expanding U.S. troop pressence at the beginning of his presidency was the goal of keeping Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. It seems clear that is no longer a danger, with Taliban forces and their influences becoming the greater challenge, especially with corruption running rampant across Afghanistan.

Recently, there was also an article about the U.S. getting involved with Afghanistan prison reform, but not just American-led prisons such as Bagram, which is seen as “tougher and more spartan” than Gitmo, creating a situation ready to explode. Karen J. Greenberg, author of “Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days,” said at a book forum I attended at New America Foundation, that what she was hearing about Bagram was worse than anything coming out of Gitmo. Inmate conditions horrific, which is now no secret: The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers or the judicial process. Many are still held communally in big cages.

A sweeping United States military review calls for overhauling the troubled American-run prison here as well as the entire Afghan jail and judicial systems, a reaction to worries that abuses and militant recruiting within the prisons are helping to strengthen the Taliban.

So, what’s our current purpose and mission in Afghanistan? I knew what it was before. I don’t now.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Salut!

By on 30 July 2009

–updated–

A bartender? Or was that a waiter?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden in shirt sleeves. Prof. Crowley and Sgt. Gates both in suit and tie. Obama went with Bud Light; Biden with Buckler; Gates with Sam Adams Light; Crowley with Blue Moon.

According to the pool report, Sgt. Crowley did most the talking, with Prof. Gates listening intently. Obama got a kick out of something and laughed out loud. Both Gates (kids, fiance and father), and Crowley (wife and kids) brought their families, who got the White House tour while the men toasted with POTUS AND VPOTUS.

“Race in America: After the beers” was the title on CNN after the.. um… event.

The Beer Summit blowback wasn’t far away. The inanity of the criticism hitting head on into the secrecy of the moment. Let the press cameras in, but hold them back on a line so they can’t ask questions, looking longingly at the four men sitting around a round table wondering what was being said, as well as being eaten. Peanuts? Wolf Blitzer clearly was miffed that the press was kept at such a distance.

It doesn’t get anymore controlled than this, which is why you have CNN asking if this was a “missed opportunity” and “what lessons were learned.”

Meanwhile, Pres. Obama just wants to get this off his plate and move on. Nobody’s going to let him, that much is clear.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Idiots for Israel Give Iran Regime Hope

By on 30 July 2009
Settlements_byArzeh

–expletive deleted–

Sorry.

But this is absolutely infuriating. It’s another in a pattern of rumblings on this subject that is pointing to something potentially alarming.

… But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu’s initial concessions — he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations — Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement “freeze.” Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the “confidence-building” concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration’s final year, have yet to resume.

Calling Bush’s “peace negotiations”… um… “active” in the last year is like calling John Bolton reasonable.

But really, Netanyahu’s “initial concessions”? Huh?

What’s next from the Post? Reprinting Newsweek’s wacky notion that Pres. Obama should appoint George W. Bush as Israeli envoy? It’s so stupendously ignorant as to completely ignore the Iran quotient of our Israeli reality.

Let’s not get distracted.

Netanyahu never had any intention of respecting Obama’s policy of no new settlements. (See MJ Rosenberg’s remarkable article on Netanyahu today.) But the real beef is Obama’s Iran policy, with neocons certain that the Mousavi green wave would distract Pres. Obama from his diplomatic outreach. Clinton saying that the offer for engagement wouldn’t be there forever further stoking Netanyahu’s hopes that we’d be deterred from engaging Iran. Meanwhile, Clinton’s “defense umbrella” once again making Bibi’s heart race.

Enter Roger Cohen, the best writer on the region today. “Iran: The Tragedy & the Future” tells the continuing story of Israel, beyond settlements, which actually is all tied together. It’s about what Israel continues to do against their own best interests, while Cohen makes a mockery of every word written in the Washington Post today.

Ahmadinejad, a volatile radical, thrived on the radical Bush White House. Consigned to the axis of evil, he proved nimble at fighting back, identifying himself with the disinherited of the earth against the “arrogant power.” But damaged by the violence at home, facing a black American president of partly Muslim descent who has reached out to the Islamic world, and irretrievably discredited in the West through his Holocaust denial, he may now prove more of a liability than an asset. If Obama is able to coax Syria, Iran’s chief Arab ally, into an Arab–Israeli peace process, Tehran’s regional position could begin to look a lot less powerful, especially with oil at $60 a barrel, the economy in a downward spiral, and resistance stiffening in Iraq to Iranian interference. I heard the example of Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani invoked several times after the election as an instructive example of powerful Shia religious leadership that respects the democratic process. … ..

[...] … I do know that if the hard-liners maintain their current tenuous hold, the one way they will lock it in for a long time would be if bombs fell on Iran. Offers of engagement have unsettled the regime. Military confrontation would cement it.

You have to take all these moving parts together to get the dangerous dynamics of what having the Washington Post editorial page, which also sports Krauthammer and Kristol, slamming Obama on Israel means. Just the latest salvo in ratcheting up the rhetoric. Revealing that the full court press being applied to Pres. Obama over his Middle East policy seems to have found a foundation.

Given the domestic challenges Pres. Obama faces, think about what can actually be done this year on “equilibrium,” seeing past 2009 and into the 2010 elections. Are Netanyahu’s friends already sensing and acting on their belief that Obama’s Middle East “peace” window has closed?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iran, Obama – Clinton Tag Team Brits on Torture, and other world happenings

By on 30 July 2009

Police in Iran have crashed the mourning of Neda. The CNN piece here reports almost 3,000 mourners, plus Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard, his wife, were present as well.

The Guardian has a provocative article about Secretary Clinton allegedly “indicating,” which in the Guardian title is judged as “threatening”, Britain about disclosing any CIA torture evidence regarding Binyam Mohamed. He was released in February 2009, with his lawyers now trying to get evidence believed currently held by the British government that Mohamed was tortured while in U.S. custody.

The court has heard how the Foreign Office and Miliband have solicited US help in keeping the CIA material secret. Today, it heard how Miliband met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.

In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she “indicated” that the disclosure of CIA evidence “would affect intelligence sharing”. Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband’s counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would “reassess” its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that “would put lives at risk”.

Glenn Greenwald writes that if Britain discloses the “seven paragraph summary” the U.S. would “cut-off intelligence-sharing” with the Brits. Considering our century old relationship on intelligence matters, I find it very hard to believe that we’d sever our intelligence sharing, especially given the fact that Britain is in a much better place to monitor extremist elements that could harm U.S. interests than we are. However, the U.S. is in the driver’s seat in this relationship, make no mistake about it, with Pres. Obama adamantly clear about the unreleased photos. Additionally, Binyam Mohamed’s alleged torture at Gitmo seems hard to dispute considering the reports. Glenn does make a very good point, the bold below being the central issue in this story: New statements from the British Foreign Secretary yesterday — claiming that Hillary Clinton personally re-iterated those threats in a May meeting — highlight how extreme is this joint American/British effort to cover-up proof of Mohamed’s torture. The closing paragraph from this document from April, which admittedly I hadn’t read, makes that clear, obliterating any doubt I may have initially entertained:

.. …In the circumstances now prevailing, the balance is served by maintaining the redaction of the paragraphs from our first judgment. In short, whatever views may be held as to the continuing threat made by the Government of the United States to prevent a short summary of the treatment of BM being put into the public domain by this court, it would not, in all the circumstances we have set out and in the light of the action taken, be in the public interest to expose the United Kingdom to what the Foreign Secretary still considers to be the real risk of the loss of intelligence so vital to the safety of our day to day life. If the information in the redacted paragraphs which we consider so important to the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability is to be put into the public domain, it must now be for the United States Government to consider changing its position or itself putting that information into the public domain.

Stunning once it sinks in.

Through Clinton, Obama is proving his point and what he expects out of our British allies. Miliband, someone I’ve watched in action, is a modern diplomat and leader looking at higher office (in my judgment), so the prospect that he’d interpret Clinton’s shot across Britain’s bow as a “threat” and say so through his attorney seems like a distancing mechanism to me, especially if you believe as I do that all secrets surrounding Bush-Cheney policy on torture will eventually be revealed. Obama’s obsession with looking backwards evidently has Sect. Clinton complicit in delivering language that demands covering up what they had nothing to with implementing. That said, I seriously doubt Clinton would do any differently if the positions were reversed, which is thrust of what Glenn is saying by pointing the finger at Clinton.

An interview with Eric Holder focuses on the “home grown” terrorism threat.

“I mean, that’s one of the things that’s particularly troubling: This whole notion of radicalization of Americans,” Holder told ABC News during an interview in his SUV as his motorcade brought him from home to work. “Leaving this country and going to different parts of the world and then coming back, all, again, in aim of doing harm to the American people, is a great concern.”

I’m not doubting the Attorney General, but I’d say we have a graver threat. The radicalization of right wing America who is being scared to death that Pres. Obama is threatening their lives. This furor is coming via racial motivation, for sure, but also from a socialist scare that goes back to the early 20th century when Democrats began being demonized, with the right picking up that frenzy again today, made more dangerous because Obama is African American. The across state lines concealed carry push, which recently failed in the Senate but not by as much as it should, is representative of the fear being stoked across the country.

Tony Blair is being summoned in his country’s Iraq war inquiry.

Hold on for this next one. China reports 13 million abortions per year.

Human trafficking is big business.

More than one million people, the majority of them women and children, are smuggled across international borders to work in near slavery every year, the US state department says.

And to end on a happy note, children in Gaza seek to win the world’s kite flying record. Visualizing a sky of brightly flying colors.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Quote of the Day (so far)

By on 30 July 2009

–bumped–

Photobucket

Notwithstanding what might develop at the presidential beer bash tonight, this one is a beauty.

“As the old saying goes, ‘Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.’ ” Colonel Reese wrote. “Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”

No one can tell it as bluntly as a military man in the middle of whatever mess we’ve dragged him in to fix.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Glenn Beck’s Un-American Slander

By on 29 July 2009

Just imagine what would happen if Obama was a conservative and a liberal let fly with such vitriol.

Watching Beck lean back, so comfortable on that couch. He gives the impression of a man on the rise with nothing to fear or to lose. That on Fox he’s found his place. One has to wonder if there will be any consequences for Beck over his un-American slander of the President of the United States.

MSNBC’s Donnie Deutsch slammed Glenn Beck today, then made an excellent suggestion. Write the advertisers of Beck’s show. Tell them that you don’t appreciate his un-American slander of the President of the United States. His advertisers, in part: General Motors, Campbell Soup, Chrysler, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, Kellogg, Walmart, Kraft Foods, Nestle. A diarist over at DailyKos has compiled the email addresses, phone numbers, names of top execs. and a lot more.

This is not a boycott, but a statement to these advertisers that they should advertise on another show. At least that was Deutsch’s point, which I think is a good one. Simply let the advertiser know that this type of heinous vitriol against the President of the United States should not be supported with advertising.

Instead of advertising on Beck’s show, suggest they move to Shep Smith, someone who at least has a brain and some balance.

Nobody is saying everyone has to agree with what the President says or proposes. But anyone saying Pres. Obama is “a racist” is purposely being divisive and even incendiary at a time when rhetoric on the right is getting hotter by the day.

That Beck is also ignoring the great American story of the rise of the first African American to become president, well, that should get Beck shunned by everyone.

To give you an idea of how over the top Glenn Beck is with this slander, Fox News Channel distanced themselves from him, saying Beck was sharing his personal opinion.

As I watched this I also began wondering about Beck himself, who is a Mormon. A church that didn’t recognize African Americans to be fit for the priesthood and many other things in the church until 1978. As my husband is a recovering Mormon, having gone through the trouble to take his name off the roles, I’ve learned a lot about that church (also having bad experiences with a few). Though I have also met wonderful people of the Mormon faith who are anything but racist. However, I obviously still have great objections to their imbedded sexism in keeping women in their place, so to speak; but I feel the same about the Baptist religion, as well as Catholicism, which is why I’m Episcopalian. However, with Beck’s vicious accusation about Obama being “a racist,” it’s obvious he missed a lesson or two about racial tolerance. Missed the moment when his own church walked away from their racism, welcoming African Americans into the temples. The implied bigotry in Glenn Beck’s remark is so alarmingly stark it can lead to only one conclusion. Maybe Glenn Beck is the one who’s actually racist. His Mormon brethren should call him on it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Finds His Inner Partisan

By on 29 July 2009

“No one in America should go broke because of an illness. … .. … [...] …Because the truth is we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn’t always work well for you.” [applause] – Pres. Obama

Photobucket

After Obama’s abysmal health care press conference last week, which left his message in tatters. It seems he decided to pay attention to his leaking approval ratings and the fact that Democrats were losing ground on the health care debate and do something about it.

So, in Raleigh, North Carolina today, a hub of Glaxosmithkline, Pres. Obama came out swinging at his opponents. He was on fire, taking special delight at hitting the Republican health care reform fearmongers, while simultaneously slamming them over criticism of the Recovery Act.

When Obama got to the moment in his warm up where he stated you won’t be denied insurance because of a pre-existing illness, the room erupted into a standing ovation. But Obama’s opener was a stem winder reaching back into the Republican excess under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It was long overdue.

“… Although I’ve gotta say, when I hear critics talk about out of control spending I start scratchin’ my head. I can’t help but remember, those same critics contributed to a $1.3 trillion deficit that I inherited when I took office. [applause]… I mean, seriously, I’m now president, so I’m responsible for solving it, but I don’t think we should have a selective memory. You hand me a $1.3 trillion dollar bill and then you’re complaining 6 months later because we haven’t paid it all back. [applause] A debt, by the way, that was partially the result of two tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthiest few Americans, and a Medicare drug program that wasn’t paid for. These are the same folks who are now complaining about health care, we can’t afford health care. You pass a prescription drug program and didn’t pay for it! Handed the bill to me. [Obama laughs]…” … .. Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. [applause] I’m tired of hearing that … These folks need to stop scaring everybody. [applause and cheering]… .. …” – Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina (rough transcript)

The ending was even better than the beginning.

“I keep sayin’ to people, I’ve got health care. This is not for me. …this isn’t about politics, this is about people’s lives. This is about people’s businesses. This about the future. I want our children and grandchildren to look back and say this is when we decided to take the politics out of it and start doing something for the future of this country. I’m going to need your help, Raleigh. Let’s go do it.”

It was Barack Obama the campaigner today, taking a page from William Jefferson Clinton who always understood that pushing big legislation in Washington is always a partisan fight. That people side with winners, not losers, especially when the complexities are beyond them. So if the health care debate is being framed as “lost,” we’re screwed. Changing perceptions and the message was what today was about.

“I was getting fired up there,” Obama said with a chuckle, as he headed to take questions.

Stay fired up, Mr. President. That’s what it’s going to take to get a good bill done, especially with no votes coming until fall.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sarah’s Sex Appeal

By on 29 July 2009

As McCain pal and Republican strategist Mike Murphy so sagely observed recently: “If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?” – Maureen Dowd

Donny Deutsch agrees with Murphy (see video), while Tamron Hall proves she’s a lousy political analyst, squealing “ridiculous!” and “insane” at what is not only absolutely true, but essential for national politics. I call it the John F. Kennedy quotient. That “it” thing that sent Nixon back to the drawing board. The visual impact of a politician’s charisma. Sarah’s got it. But that’s hardly the only issue in the sex appeal debate.

Maureen Dowd gave a hint, this time on “Way Too Early with Willie Geist,” via Dan Abrams new site:

“I love Sarah Palin. I mean, I love her more than anyone because as a journalist she is the best story ever… It’s like Hollywood casting — when you have Meg Ryan playing a nuclear physicist or, you know, Calista Flockhart playing a Harvard lawyer — I mean, you’ve got this former beauty queen and sportscaster who is in the role of Dick Cheney, and it’s mesmerizing.” – Maureen Dowd

Leaving Liz Cheney’s channeling of her father aside, Dowd gives you a window into what happened in 2008, when Barack Obama was getting all the good press, and Hillary couldn’t buy any. Journalists are people too and they love exciting personalities, especially on the national scene. So even as Dowd is dissing Sarah’s prowess, she admits to “love her more than anyone because she is the best story ever.”

Even as Sarah serves the media up as enemies, they’re the ones who will help keep her afloat… or not.

But I’m still wondering why so many women, especially, find it appalling to talk about Sarah’s sex appeal as a political weapon. Tamron Hall’s ignorant indignation almost seemed to say it was sexist to say such a thing. Nothing could be more preposterous.

The problem is that Sarah Palin’s sex appeal being her only weapon gives rise to the classic 20th century stereotype of women rising to the top by means other than competency and earned effort.

Dowd puts Hillary into this category again today, saying she’s finally gotten rid of “that irritating question mark” she carried “around above her head like a thunder cloud”, coupled with the question: What is Hillary owed because of what she gave up, and went through, for Bill? Judging Hillary finally worthy of the spotlight, Dowd simultaneously ignores the hard work that landed Clinton her Senate seat, that long ago answered the question over Bill.

Juxtaposed against Clinton, Dowd talks about the woman she so loves, Sarah Palin, being “all cage, no bird.”

Clearly Dowd’s confused, stapled to her 1950s genre monocle through which she sees the political world. Dowd admits to loving Sarah, even if she’s all sex appeal and nothing but sex appeal. Through Dowd’s prism, which she continues to use to judge Hillary, we get the never ending June Cleaver wisdom.

On the other side we’ve got MSNBC’s Tamron Hall providing the straight-jacketed feminist view, which basically relegates the conversation of sex appeal unworthy if you’re talking about women. The image of the sexless female with only brain, no competing style to a man’s machismo to offer.

With few women in political power able to vault to the national spotlight and finally break the toughest of concrete ceilings, the American presidency, I’m just wondering when we’re going to get both. A woman with sex appeal and brains to match, you know, like John F. Kennedy, minus the philandering, of course. Because a woman in high office caught with her legs up would be burned at the stake.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tax the Stuff Making Us Sick

By on 29 July 2009

–updated–

How do we pay for health care?

Some call it a “sin” tax. I won’t. It’s too 20th century, religious punishment for me.

It’s a “healthy tax.” Taxing beverages and foods, but also pleasure vices, that are making us sick, sometimes killing us, but also adding to the cost of national health care hopes. It’s an idea whose time has come IF we’re serious about getting healthier.

Meanwhile, The Hill has its usual headline maligning Democrats: “Dem healthcare infighting intensified.” The whole “Democrats in disarray” the favorite theme of the DC media elite. That this crowd doesn’t see working hard to get a national health care bill something that should be talked about in more serious terms, rather than reduce it to party infighting, illustrates the lack of understanding for what Democrats are actually intending to do. As if getting national health care is an easy goal.

Read about rural Virginia if you don’t think this issue is urgent.

The story here isn’t Democratic “infighting.” It’s about Max Baucus hijacking the health care agenda, with top Dems willing to provide him cover while he does it. Oh, what I wouldn’t give for a healthy Ted Kennedy. We’ve never needed his presence more.

Reid gave Baucus some cover by refusing to rule out supporting the co-op compromise.

On Tuesday, Obama reiterated his support for the public option during an event held at the headquarters of the seniors’ lobby AARP. “I think that helps keep the insurance companies honest because now they have somebody to compete with,” he said.

But while Obama and his aides have trumpeted this support, they have not ruled out backing the compromise. “He knows what we’re doing,” Baucus said. “I talk to the president daily; our staffs talk to the White House daily.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration would “certainly take a look at” the co-op idea, but said it was “a little premature” to talk about reconciling the two conflicting bills.

Obama is “comfortable with the path this is going on,” Gibbs said.

But we’ve still got to pay for it.

Food lobbyists are working overtime to make sure they’re not hit, even if it’s just a few cents on each product.

The House wants to tax the rich.

I say, tax my wine and beer. Tax chips. Tax anything with refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup in it, including those high fat breakfast treats like danish and donuts. If Americans are going to insist on their fat-causing, obesity aiding refined products, they should at least have to pay the price for what it will cost in health care bills eventually.

But we should get a tax deduction if we belong to a gym. After all, some Americans spend time and hard earned money on staying healthy. A tax credit incentivizes our intent. It’s another good idea.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TM-DC Podcast: Health Care, Dean on Dems (and more)

By on 28 July 2009

The latest podcast is up. You can get it through RSS, as well as ITunes. Enjoy.

The topics are Gates – Crowley – Obama, health care, as well as Sarah Palin. Couldn’t forget her after she officially quit on Sunday.

As for some background for the podcast, it’s Howard Dean who nails it.

You know, this is going to be a hell of an issue in 2010 cause honestly, what’s the point of having a 60 vote majority in the United States Senate, if you can’t produce…health care reform. You can get health insurance reform. This bill is going to cost us a lot of money and it isn’t going to do anything, if this so-called compromise is true. This compromise does nothing, except it will reform insurance. That’s a good thing to do, but they ought to strip the money out of it cause we reformed insurance like this in Vermont 15 years ago. It’s a fine thing to do, but it doesn’t insure more people.

I’d remind everyone that in last week’s press conference Obama led off with “health insurance reform” as the goal, which few caught at the time. But it sure got my attention straight off.

Good evening. Before I take your questions, I want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we’re making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our broader economic strategy. – Pres. Obama

Now take a look at this picture.

Where are the health care heroes? See Ezra:

This is not the Finance Committee’s bill. This is the Max Baucus Committee’s Bill. And there’s not a liberal — or even a Democrat traditionally associated with health-care policy — working on it.

Now read this article, if you haven’t already.

Health care and more in the podcast.

Read full story · Comments are closed

7.28.09 – ‘Stupidly’ Leads to Beer; Health Care Insanity; Sarah Palin Quits

By on 28 July 2009


Photobucket[podcast]http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/taylorlive2009-07-28175728.mp3[/podcast]

Read full story · Comments are closed

Shatner Makes Sense of Sarah

By on 28 July 2009

You knew someone had to at some point.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israelis Unglued Over Obama Policies

By on 28 July 2009

–updated below–

Coming after Netanyahu calling Emanuel and Axelrod both “self-hating Jews,” the latest salvo from another prominent Israeli is not as insulting, but certainly as obtuse. Ignoring that Pres. Obama has already met with PM Netanyahu, Mr. Benn’s argument today sounds alarmingly like a spoiled brat having a tantrum.

So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have — in columns, articles and public statements — taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.

Photobucket

“More pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel” because Pres. Obama has put a condition of no new settlements in Israel. To give you an idea how outlandish the Netanyahu response has been to Obama’s U.S. policy, look no further than his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who demanded a photo of a prominent Palestinian leader sitting with Hitler be distributed to embassies after the latest clash over another settlement. Allan Dershowitz, as if on cue, used the opportunity to take to a new slanderous low, even for him. A little coordinated incitement, Allan? What Matt Duss wrote.

Now comes Aluf Benn, the editor at large of Haaretz, whose op-ed in the New York Times today illustrates just how counterproductive U.S. policy has been in the Middle East throughout the Bush-Cheney years. Mr. Benn is opining and moaning about Obama not personally talking to Israel. It matters not to the Israelis that Obama met with Netanyahu, or how many envoys have been in their country. They want Obama to change what he’s said and speak to them directly to tell them so. Given the breadth and lack of common ground revolving around the settlement issue, it’s a good thing he has not.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.

First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

To say that we “stayed out of the way” when Israel laid waste to parts of Lebanon in 2006 is a joke. Bush rushed weapons to Israel’s side. This disastrous war also infuriated many Americans (myself included, writing about it extensively), but also including Jewish Americans, which brings me to another point from Benn’s op-ed.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis.

On the contrary. Israelis like Mr. Benn seem to have confused Obama’s job with doing whatever Israelis want, even when his own constituents support his current policy. Mr. Benn obviously believes in the theory of continuing to do the same thing through policies that haven’t worked hoping for a different result.

It’s called madness.

Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

I mean, really. But if you think that’s bad…

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Inside Israel, Netanyahu’s position may be stronger than before. If Obama’s credibility inside Israel has been “undermined,” it’s because people like Mr. Benn refuse to see the Palestinian side of this story. That’s what’s been wrong with the push for “peace,” what we call equilibrium around here, for a very long time. No one has been willing to stand in the middle and look both ways.

There are two sides to the story on a two-state solution. Settlements are a line in the sand that Obama has drawn, which has broad support, though not in Israel. Obama’s already talked to Netanyahu when he was in Washington, laying this out. The ball is actually in your court, Mr. Benn.

UPDATE: Obama officials respond to Benn’s article via Jeffrey Goldberg. The Administration’s responses are dead on and illustrate just how petulant Benn and other Israelis in that camp are being. Obama will at some point talk to Israel, of which no one should doubt. But the groundwork being laid by his envoys is also providing him invaluable information on where he can go and what he should focus on and how it should be said.

These two senior officials — sorry, those were the ground rules — made the plausible argument that the Cairo speech was, in fact, directed at Israelis as much as it was directed at Arabs. “The President went before a Cairo audience in a speech co-sponsored by Al-Azhar with Muslim Brotherhood members in the audience and spoke of America’s strong, unshakable support for Israel,” one of the officials said. “He could have gone to a million different venues to say this, but he went to Cairo, and it wasn’t exactly an applause line. Isn’t it more important to say this to the Muslim world than it is to say it to an audience of Israelis or American Jews?”

These two officials pointed out something that I forgot about the speech, which is that it contained strong condemnations of the cynical Arab ploy to use the Palestinian issue as a diversion (in other words, to keep the focus of unhappy Arabs on Israel and not on the weaknesses of their own anti-democratic, corrupt governments), and of course it contained an unequivocal denunciation of terrorism committed in the name of resistance.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan Report

By on 27 July 2009

A remarkable report from Michael Yon, complete with gripping photography, as well as analysis.

The Helmand River as seen from Google Earth. Nearly everything in this image is under Taliban control. British and U.S. forces (almost exclusively British here) are contesting this control. The British are making progress in the Sangin area. We are vastly undermanned and under-resourced; however, some villagers in outlying regions here believe that the British are Russians from the last war. Near the top of the image is Kajaki Dam. The British control the dam, but the Taliban are in uncontested control of the surrounding area. The enemy fired on a helicopter at Kajaki this weekend, and shot one down at Sangin a couple weeks back.

The video is a reminder of the escalating violence now happening and its ties to the upcoming elections in Afghanistan.

Not much focus on Afghanistan right now, but there should be. Tom Ricks writes about the Wanat report, part of which has obviously been leaked, pointing to major COIN (counterinsurgency) failures.

As a supporter of Obama’s initial strategy (and increase of 17,000 soldiers, as well as McChrystal, etc.), I still want to know where we’re getting ready to go in Afghanistan. Right now, from the little we know, it’s looking a lot like mission creep.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obesity is Deadly and Expensive

By on 27 July 2009

We’re fat and getting fatter quicker.

Look around.

Now that we’re talking about national health care, will it become everybody’s business?

In the eight years leading up to 2006, the proportion of Americans weighing in as obese shot up 37%, fueling a $40-billion-a-year rise in healthcare costs, according to a new analysis of the nation’s weight conducted under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That added bill for the care of obese Americans — equivalent to an annual expenditure of $1,429 more per person — drove the nation’s healthcare tab up fast and very steeply: while the extra care required for the severely overweight accounted for 6.1% of all medical spending in 1998, it accounted for 9.1% of total spending by 2006, the new study shows.

Check with your doctor about any exercise program, especially if have never had one. That goes double for any change in diet. Altering either exercise and diet is something that should be done slowly and carefully. Besides, if you want to get healthy the only way it will happen is through a lifestyle shift. This post in no way is being offered as medical advice, as I’m not an M.D. and not qualified in the least, which will make my lawyer happy that I’ve admitted. But I certainly can give you my own personal experience on the subject gained over a lifetime of competitive living in many, many arenas.

“The biggest loser” is a terrific inspiration to the obese. These people intend on changing their life by getting control over their own eating and exercise habits, which has the power to change their lives.

Of course, eating is also tied to emotions. Who doesn’t know that? So it’s a complex issue requiring a lot of intellectual work as well.

If we’re serious about health care reform, the first thing that has to happen is each American taking responsibility for their own health and the choices each person makes to sabotage that effort. With national health care, we’re paying for the fat slob across the aisle. So tolerance for obesity has got to go. As does laziness about working out and our own responsibility to health.

Anyone bet we’re going to do this? That people are going to curb their junk food addictions? Fat chance.

Now, not everyone is a size 4, including me. But everyone knows when they’re overweight and should rein it in. You don’t need a scale for that. You also know if you’re in shape. You don’t feel good when you’re overweight and out of shape. You also look like hell. There is nothing wrong with being a size 14, depending on your own natural curves and body structure. However, if you’re not working out 30 minutes a day, 5 to 6 times a week, well, you’re simply out of shape.

Working out every day is not something you ask yourself if you have time for. You simply make the time every day. No outs. Period.

The phrase “big and beautiful” was a major phrase back in the 1990s. It was used a lot in personal and dating ads. But “fat and beautiful” would not have caught on. Making big sexy had been a movement. However, fat isn’t in anymore.

What’s the difference? With national health, will we start defining it more aggressively?

The saddest sight I see is fat parents with kids following in their footsteps. It’s appalling. In fact, it’s a type of child abuse. It’s setting up the kid to have a horrendous disadvantage later in life. But when parents are lazy, fat slobs, what do you expect?

But how focused are we really going to be on “health care.” Not just affordable health insurance, but a nation of people who get a grip that “dieting” doesn’t do it and if you want to be healthy it’s about changing your lifestyle to match that intent?

Drinking too much? Did you think immediately about alcohol? What about sugar rich sodas? Both in excess are killers.

There are a few secrets I’ve learned over the years about weight. First among them is you won’t lose weight if you don’t exercise… a lot. Some half-assed meandering walk around the block isn’t enough. That goes double once you’re over 40. Secondly, to lose weight you have to eat less. Push away from the table. But starving yourself is stupid and a diet frame of mind, not a lifestyle shift that you can manage over the long haul. There’s no substitute for thinking long term. And know your body and don’t compare it to Jane who’s younger and burns calories like oxygen.

Oh, and get your butt to the gym.

Someone also needs to tell me why people who work daily on staying fit and healthy should pay for the diseases of the obese when they made that choice themselves?

“The connection between rising obesity and rising medical spending is undeniable,” the authors of the study, published in the journal Health Affairs, concluded.

Smokers get dinged on insurance forms, costing more, why shouldn’t the obese?

This is one reason I can only get so exercised, forgive the pun, about health care reform, unless it has a prevention and wellness aspect built in. What are people going to do themselves to make health care reform work, which includes keeping costs down by not getting preventable diseases?

It gets down to changing the way we think. Good health is very rarely an accident. It also goes beyond diet and exercise to include mental health. But that’s another subject for another day.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Palin to Press: ‘Quit Making Things Up’

By on 27 July 2009

Palin is many things but “another Huckabee” isn’t one of them.

Could Mike Huckabee ever gather the crowd sizes of Sarah Palin? Laughable.

Does the media converge wherever Huckabee shows his face? Preposterous.

Is there any chance Huckabee could raise millions for the GOP? Impossible.

Frankly, I’m enjoying the Palin circus, including the press chasing her around.

No politician today comes close to Palin’s magnetic force, with lovers and haters of Sarah Palin causing a political hurricane around her quitting. That’s why comments and ratings to the video shown in this post have been disabled.

A fellow Alaskan seemed to have the best take on Palin’s strategy looking forward:

“It appears that she really doesn’t have a plan,” said Michael Carey, the former editorial page editor of the Anchorage Daily News and a public affairs commentator. “This is in keeping with her ad hoc approach to life.”

Everything depends on her ability to out perform expectations in 2010, bringing real benefits to Republicans running across the country. But regardless of her wacky political style, including quitting her job as governor as a means of failing upwards, Sarah Palin will remain the hot political ticket to watch for the short-term.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The View from Clinton’s Seat

By on 27 July 2009

“I am the chief adviser on foreign policy. … .. [...] [...] …I’m out of politics.“ – Secretary of State Clinton

As backdrop, Gates is on his way to Israel, as is Mitchell, along with Gen. Jones. The question expected to come came. About that “nuclear umbrella,” Secretary?

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let’s be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

SEC’Y CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst. Our hope is–that’s why we’re engaged in the president’s policy of engagement toward Iran–is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities. You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control. But there’s a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.

As for Israel, Gregory never asked the question. What about Israel’s nuclear weapons program? Why is our ally being held to a different standard than all other nations?

No American journalist has the temerity to ask the question.

The reviews of Clinton were uniformly strong, with conservatives feeling particularly comfortable with their former enemy. Roger Simon over at PajamasMedia starting one paragraph with: Thank the deity for Hillary.

The one issue regarding Iran so many people can’t seem to grasp is the very nature of diplomacy. On this issue, Gregory served up the usual.

MR. GREGORY: But if the United States decides to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, as has been the stated policy of the willingness to engage, are you not betraying this democratic movement trying to overthrow that regime?

SEC’Y CLINTON: I don’t think so, David, because you can go back in history–and not, you know, very long back–where we have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. Look at the breakthrough and subsequent negotiations with communist China. That’s what you do in diplomacy. You don’t get to choose the people; that’s up to the internal dynamics within a society. …

Conservatives can’t seem to grasp the concept of holding two opposing views in your head at once. That’s just one reason they can’t do foreign policy and why they don’t understand the first thing about diplomacy.

…and then the inevitable, about Sarah Palin.

MR. GREGORY: Now, you probably don’t agree with her politically, but do you believe that Governor Palin represents a woman’s chance to become president?

SEC’Y CLINTON: Well, I’m not–I’m out of politics. That’s one of the things about being secretary of state. And I would wish her well in her private life as she leaves the office.

As for the other inevitable, Gregory didn’t ask the presidency question, but played the tape of last week, which I wrote about, instead. A moment that clearly reveals Clinton’s not thinking about tomorrow. Anyone counting on her running for president again is playing the Al Gore game.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Beyond Dr. Tiller

By on 26 July 2009

–updated–

Not only did she fear the protesters, she also worried about whether Dr. Tiller would be gruff and cold, “only in it for the money,” as his critics alleged. It was almost a shock, she said, to instead meet a slightly nerdy doctor who gently explained every step and kept asking, “Are you doing O.K.?” – An Abortion Battle, Fought to the Death

Photobucket

I don’t write much about this subject. I still can’t figure out why in an age where science has offered up the antidote to abortion, we’re still talking about it. The Morning After Pill combined with birth control should render this discussion closed. In fact, the article today in the New York Times Magazine illustrates why traditional media is failing so spectacularly. Instead of Dr. Tiller’s story, why isn’t the Times focusing on the health care debate and women’s reproductive rights, including abortion?

A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent last Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they “cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.” The House health-care bill doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, but the Democrats who signed the letter are a guarantee that it wouldn’t allow the federal funding of abortions or require that private health-insurance plans pay for abortions. – WSJ

But yet, the pro selective life crowd keep on with their 19th century mantra, with zealots among them winning on access and lynch-mob mentality for anyone who dares to provide women the legal health care rights we deserve. The pro selective life crowd hell bent on scuttling women’s civil rights for which women have fought and died over decades and decades. Their theory when applied to health care today is simple, as is their advice to Pres. Obama:

You will infuriate abortion-rights activists. But to be blunt, where are they going to go? – The Week Magazine

The “where are they going to go” theory of women’s civil rights shrouded in the “call their bluff” talking points of putting in language against poor women, so that the majority gets health care, etc. etc. Read the piece, you’ll get the picture.

But even as bad as the piece is, it’s where the New York Times should have gone today. Proving that even this newspaper can’t reject passed events over the importance of covering a critical current event in today’s health care debate.

The pro choice crowd not singularly focused on engaging these anti civil rights activists on the one issue that renders the issue solved: reproductive health care products, including when it comes to health care reform. Some Democrats fighting for health care reform seem to think the Chris Matthews philosophy against abortion access the most moral fight.

The whole debate revolves around civil rights (which should never be predicated on whether you are rich or poor).

Back in May, I did an interview with Women on the Web about whether there is a “pro-life feminist movement.” I can barely write those words without laughing out loud. I explain why fully in the interview below. It seems like a perfect moment to share the importance of women’s civil rights, which includes full reproductive health care access. Today Women on the Web’s lead story is on “The Bathing Suit Chronicles.” Anyway, I tape all my interviews, so I’ve got the back and forth, which I thought I’d share today, because it adds a broader context to The New York Times piece. Though we might have missed some things here and there, the text is as close to verbatim as we could get. I hope it will give everyone something to think about. We’re beyond Tiller today.

_________________________

WOMEN ON THE WEB: … As I told you this is for a piece on the pro-life feminist movement.

TAYLOR: Oh, that’s an oxymoron.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: OK, well we’ll get into that in a second. First of all you describe yourself as pro-choice, basically. Can I ask you why you . . . you’re pro-choice?

TAYLOR: Well I don’t describe myself as pro-choice, actually.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: How do you describe yourself?

TAYLOR: I’m pro women’s civil rights.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: OK.

TAYLOR: That’s what I’m for.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: And what’s . . .

TAYLOR: Civil rights begins with what we do with our own bodies. If you cannot have . . . if you don’t have control over your own body, there’s . . . there are no civil rights. It doesn’t exist. I mean, I happen to believe that privacy is part of that, but that isn’t the only issue. The issue is my body is nobody else’s but my own. And what I . . . and my decisions that affect my body and my life, whether it’s diet, health or something as monumental as ending a pregnancy or deciding to go forward with a pregnancy, that is ultimately my decision. And this is a civil rights issue.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Right. Well a lot of people, certainly like in your ideological camp for people who would define themselves as pro-choice, discuss the fact that, you know, being able to choose what to do with their body is an empowering decision for women. Marjorie Dannfelser, who runs the Susan B. Anthony List, and that’s a group that campaigns for pro-life female candidates, as well as pro-life male candidates, argued to me that . . . …But she said, “Well, you know, people can be empowered to do lots of things. We can be empowered to abuse our children, we can be empowered to starve ourselves, we can be . . .

TAYLOR: Oh, good grief.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: . . . empowered to steal. What do you make of that sort of counter argument from her?

TAYLOR: Well it’s . . . it’s changing the subject. It’s kind of like a non sequitur argument, and I disagree with their whole . . . they’re pro-selective life. They’re not pro-life. A woman in the throes of a difficult choice, especially someone that’s younger, this is . . . this is a life issue for her. And some women can’t afford it, aren’t emotionally prepared. I mean, there’s a million reasons. I’m not going to, you know, delineate people’s choices there. But this is . . . their platform is a pro-selective life, because if they really were pro-life then these individuals that want to curtail a woman’s civil rights would also be for preventing pregnancy, they’d be fore contraception, they’d be for RU-486. We could get into the stem cell debate and what that does for quality of life and pro-life. Their argument is morally bankrupt and most . . . and a lot of these people are also . . . you know, they’re the proponents for torture, they’re the proponents for the death penalty. So their pro-selective life. It’s . . . it’s . . . their argument is morally bankrupt and it . . . it really doesn’t . . . if you follow the through line you just gave, it makes absolutely no sense and I really feel sorry for them because in the 21st Century, if you really want to be an agent for changed, whatever it is, but especially when it comes to the abortion issue, you have to put everything in the mix. You have to want to help young women, you have to want to go beyond abstinence – which doesn’t work. That’s been proven a million times. And you have to not only teach abstinence, but you have to also give them the tools of what happens our emotions and our physical urges smack int . . . you know, run into the wall of a situation that is leading you down a tough road. You have to be prepared and be willing to stop unwanted pregnancies, not just through abstinence but through every means we have – scientific, medical, all of it. You have to bring all of it to bear if we’re going stop the number of abortions, which we actually have the power to do. We can bring this down if everyone would agree. You know, my side – pro civil rights – will agree, OK teach abstinence, but abstinence plus. Their side won’t come to our side. They will make no compromises whatsoever. So we’re not able to curtail the number of abortions. Then if you want to go to what we can do in the world, and AIDS and what is happening with our policy in the gag rule around the world, you know, we have a moral obligation to use every . . . every scientific means at our method, plus the moral means, plus abstinence. The only way to get abortion down is to use them all.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: … Hmm, interesting. I like the pro-selective life argument. I had not heard that but I think it’s, you know, very . . .

TAYLOR: You know, it’s absolutely what it is. It’s . . . and too many people . . . that’s why I reject wholly being put in the pro-choice. It’s far larger than that, and they get pro-life. Their sloganeering makes them sound like their on a higher plane. But when you dissect it down, and even the argument you gave me, if you dissect it down it’s creepy what their saying – that you can inspire people to be . . . I mean, that’s their argument? This . . . I’m not just . . . it’s not just about being pro-choice. I think women have a tremendous responsibility, especially in the modern era. There is no excuse for an “unwanted pregnancy.” There’s no excuse for it, with the scientific methods we have, the medicine we have, planned parenthood. And I’m not a . . . you know, I’m not a member of any of these groups, but there’s just no excuse for it. We have the means for . . . for every, single young woman – and young man, by the way. It’s not just about women, it’s men too. We have the means to stop “unwanted pregnancies.” There’s no excuse for it. And the pro-selective life community won’t engage on all these methods. And that’s why we’re still having this ridiculous argument. We should just go about . . . we should be in the solution phase, period. I mean, it’s the 21st Century. We should . . . none of these other things are valid. They are old. They are out-worn. It is putting us on a hamster wheel of this argument that gets us nowhere. And I’ve seen what this does when someone is faced with these things, when they have parents that . . . that, you know, don’t allow . . . don’t allow their own daughter’s civil rights to be acknowledged. This is a problem, and we can’t just close our eyes and say, “Oh, we’d love this all to be abstinence and every . . .” I mean, who wouldn’t love that to work? But it just doesn’t. You know, it’s just not practical. It’s just not practical. And we are . . . we all are guilty if we don’t fight for every tool we have to be on board. This is a very serious issue. This is very serious and it deserves . . . it deserves solutions, not just a rolling debate that leads us back to the 20th Century, to things that have already been solved by science.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: And my next question is a simple enough question, but of course the answer can be quite complicated. What . . . how do you define a feminist?

TAYLOR: Boy, well I’ll start by saying that for a long time the Conservatives have said that the feminist era is over, and that is because they look through a very myopic lens, and they think that feminism is just about the United States, and just about what women in the United States have. I cover foreign policy. That is my main thing, especially since I moved to DC. It has always been my passion and I look at it through a really wide lens, covering Afghan women, covering what is done to women in honor killings. Being a feminist is about . . . and you don’t have to be female to be feminist. Being a feminist is insuring that every woman has the God given civil rights that we were born with, to be totally free to envision her life as she wants without restriction, except obviously by law and certain things of that nature; not the law of a country, but the law of . . . the Golden Rule law, let’s say. And I think as long there is one woman being stoned to death in some country, if young girls are having acid poured on them because they want to go to school, it is every woman’s duty to fight for that woman to be free to make those choices to educate herself or educate children. And I . . . and this does not involve getting in the midst of religious differences. It has nothing to do with what clothing some woman wears, whether she wants to wear a (abaya or hajib). That is a choice of her religion that is none of our business. But it is the world’s business that women’s rights are human rights, and a feminist fights for those rights whether they’re in the United States of in Kenya – wherever it is. That is the goal, is to spread the importance of women’s rights as human rights, as Hillary Clinton so eloquently said back in China in the ‘90s as First Lady. This is very critical because we are learning, and we have learned, that the more women have a say in a nation the more stable their government. That is in our interest as Americans, and that’s in our interest as we go forward to try to have relationships with countries, to stabilize the world we live in.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Going over . . . I mean, doing my work for this piece I’ve encountered to many different definitions of feminist. There is the free-market feminist, the pro-life feminist, feminist feminist, progressive feminist… … I mean, you have a very . . . I’m not going to say strict, but you have a very definite definition of what a feminist can and should be. So you . . . do you not believe in a spectrum of feminism?

TAYLOR: What do you mean by a spectrum of feminism?

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Well, you know, some people argue you can be a feminist and pro-life, you can be a feminist and pro-choice, you can be . . .

TAYLOR: No, I don’t. No. Absolutely not. I don’t believe in that.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: OK.

TAYLOR: I absolutely don’t believe that. You know, femin . . . no, I don’t. It’s a civil rights issue. It’s what I just explained. No, I don’t. I don’t think you can dissect it. I think they want to dissect it because that makes it easier and the responsibilities less onerous. You know, the responsibilities that we have to fellow people on our plant, it makes it easier. And they can also say, “Well, in this small section I really am a feminist. But if I go out of this section I’m not.” You know, that . . . that doesn’t wash. Whether progressive or conservative, you know, I could care less, when we’re talking about getting something done around the world – helping women . . . The Clinton Global Foundation and how they help keep down AIDS, they make deals to get drugs to communities to help, women, their children, stop the AIDS virus. I mean, this is all our job as feminists… . . . . . …You know, we each have tribes, but we can all agree that quality of life is imperative, especially with women… whether you’re Israeli Palestinian… Israeli Arab women there do not . . . are not able to work. I mean that is our job. There is no . . . there is no subset. You either are involved in dragging this world forward to a place of more enlightenment, peace and civil rights for everyone, or you’re not. Period.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: You know what’s interesting, Taylor, is that I’ve been approaching all sorts of people for this story, but Planned Parenthood and Feminist Majority declined to comment.

TAYLOR: Huh?

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Isn’t that weird? I thought it was weird.

TAYLOR: Well, I . . . I’ve got to be honest, as I said before I don’t belong to any of those groups.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Right.

TAYLOR: And so . . . and there’s a reason… You know, there’s a reason. I just . . . I push away from the group think stuff and it’s what gets me in trouble all the time.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Well, I mean, I have the same thing with organizations like Human Rights Campaign.

TAYLOR: Yeah. . . . . . Well it’s another . . . it’s another form of tribalism. And I don’t want to get down into smaller tribes. I want to be part of a big tribe.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Right. Right.

TAYLOR: Because big tribes can make better change.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: I think so, too. Another argument that has come up from the so-called pro-life feminists is the idea that the ability to have a child, that maternity is an essential part of a woman’s being. What do you make of that, that it’s like a woman’s duty to have a child almost?

TAYLOR: That’s propaganda placed on someone else because you want to control them. Its guilt, it’s marketing, it’s making it laudatory without . . . without considering the personal woman’s own life. Again, pro-selective life, the life they want you to lead has nothing to do with her civil rights and her willingness to find her own soul’s journey. Each person is not in it for . . . as much as I want to move the collective forward, each of us is not in this world to simply be part of a collective. Through our own soul journey we find answers and our own bliss, which leads us to a higher place that makes us more valuable in that group that can push forward and make change. But the first thing you’ve got to do is go through your own soul journey. And they want to cut that off and make it . . . make women feel a duty to do something other than they’re being called to do. It’s coercion.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: And my final question for you, and I . . . I mean I pretty much know how you’re going to answer this, but I need to ask. Is it anti-feminist to fight Roe vs. Wade?

TAYLOR: Roe vs. Wade is . . . is settled law. I’m going to come back to it. This is a civil rights issue. And if you’re against women’s civil rights, you’re on the wrong side. Anything that impedes a woman’s civil rights is wrong, it is antithetical to everything that I know, even about my own Christian faith. It’s . . . it’s cutting off freedom and it’s cutting off your own soul journey. Part of the tough choices we make in life, the tough decisions, what we create on our own . . . by our own mistakes, is the challenges that make us better people. And all this is part of a civil rights journey that makes you who you are and hopefully you learn from them and get better. And it’s all down to civil rights. Anyone who fights against a person’s civil rights – women, man, gay, lesbian, whatever you want to call it – anyone who stands up against a person’s civil rights is on the wrong side.

WOMEN ON THE WEB: Alright. Well you have been very informative . . .

TAYLOR: Well thanks for this. I appreciate the opportunity. I really do.

Read full story · Comments are closed