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 | October, 2009

No Lie, People Want the Public Option

By on 20 October 2009

Another poll proving people want the public option, but now it’s a clear majority.

Some just won’t believe it, which includes some of Obama’s top aides, who so far simply will not fight for what the majority of Americans and their own party want.

Meanwhile, the emails coming in making the case that people actually don’t want the public option have been numerous and righteously sure since Sunday’s Washington Journal. The rhetoric in these emails stating that what I told their audience was wrong. One today:

“On C-SPAN you stated the most Americans are in support of the health care reform. Just check out the latest polls. Only 42% support Dem plans as they stand. You owe that call an apology.” – Robert H.

The question on the public option in the very latest poll from the Washington Post-ABC News:

10. Which of these would you prefer – (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?

Those preferring Republicans involved and supporting the bill came out at 37%, with 51% preferring a public option of some sort even if Democrats have to do it alone.

I don’t know how many other ways it can be said, so I’ll just say it again. There is no reason whatsoever why Democrats cannot put the public option in the bill. None. Zero. Zip.

Despite those mixed reviews on domestic priorities, Obama continues to hold a big political advantage over Republicans. – Washington Post

Facing that political advantage, Obama’s likely not worried about anything as he looks across at a feckless opposition. But he also seems to have convinced himself that he’ll need Republicans going forward, whether it’s true or not.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Squeezing Karzai

By on 19 October 2009

Karzai is in denial. Stripped of close to one million votes, he still hasn’t yet accepted that a runoff is required.

However, according to the AP, Pres. Karzai may be about to make a move and is ready to “set the stage” for reconciling the messy election. Secretary Clinton is saying Karzai is going to announce his intentions tomorrow.

“He is going to announce his intentions,” Clinton told reporters at the State Department after meeting with Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki. “I am going to let him do that, but I am encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.”

With winter coming, Nato secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, drew a line in the sand today as the world community comes together to pressure Mr. Karzai to move quickly.

President Barack Obama led western leaders in stepping up pressure on Karzai to hold a second round of elections to confer desperately-needed legitimacy on the Kabul government. The White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, made it clear today Obama wants Afghanistan to hold a run-off: “It is now up to the Afghans to make this legitimate.”

While Gibbs has said before that removing all US troops from Afghanistan was not a viable option, he issued a veiled threat to Karzai, saying that regardless of whether 40,000 extra troops were sent, the almost 68,000 US troops already there needed a credible partner in Kabul.

Other international leaders, including Gordon Brown, also pressed Karzai to accept the UN findings. The prime minister made his third call to the Afghanistan president within a week, telling Karzai that he should accept a run-off because he was likely to win it.

A British government source described the situation in Kabul as “volatile and unpredictable”. …

Clinton to Karzai over the weekend confirms the squeeze that’s been going on, via Tapper:

The ECC report invalidated enough votes to bring Karzai’s total percentage to around 48%, mandating a run-off election.

In a phone call over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Karzai to accept the results of the ECC process. Clinton told Karzai he could be seen as a leader, a statesman. He would almost certainly win the run-off against Abdullah – whom the ECC said garnered just over 31% of the vote. He could also be seen as a statesman if he formed a unity government with Abdullah’s allies.

[...] Karzai is being lobbied heavily not just by Americans but by the larger international community in a very united way. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called Karzai, and his lead representative on the ground, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, has been in extensive discussions with Karzai.

Neither Obama or Biden have spoken to Karzai, with AP reporting John Kerry is in Kabul tonight, with more reports confirming Karzai will likely make a statement on the elections tomorrow.

Read full story · Comments are closed

State Department Whispers

By on 19 October 2009

… [...] We’re hearing complaints even from members of the inner circle that the overworked Mills — chief of staff, counselor, overseer of Haiti policy and food security policy and the department motor pool (okay, not really) — has made entry to Clinton’s suite something like penetrating the Green Zone in Baghdad. – Al Kamen

hillary_state

Because political writing is hardly all substance and policy, for Monday midday, a little dish.

Rebutting Kamen’s article, Laura Rozen has the push back from another anonymous source, this one described as “a policy staffer who was aligned with Obama’s campaign and is not part of HRC’s inner circle.” The whole statement is laudatory of Clinton on the issue of engagement, with the summation reading: “… There are other, valid criticisms of the Secretary. Contending that she is a remote figure who has walled off the people working for her at State is unfounded and absurd.”

Ben Smith offers more on Mills, with rumblings that her gatekeeping is overbearing. As Ben reports:

Mills has shaped a State-Department-as-Hillaryland, where political staffers are loyal to the Secretary, and where I can’t think of a single appointee who supported Obama during the campaign. But the power remains in the White House, and the result has been, some Clinton backers worry, a certain marginalization.

The only complaint I have about Ms. Mills is that she’s been inaccessible, as far as my experience goes. The last thing I expected was that she wouldn’t even bother returning my emails. Having reached out to her not long after I arrived in D.C., as we only met very briefly during the primary season as I passed through Clinton quarters, she was gracious then, though we hardly had time to chat. However difficult schedules remain to coordinate, the opposite has been the case for other top Clinton allies, including Philippe Reines, as well as Howard Wolfson (who didn’t go with Clinton to State), including even Secretary Clinton, who remains gracious and engaging. Granted, Ms. Mills might not have time for a cocktail, which is fine, but it sure sounds like she could use one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From U.S. to Afghanistan, Women Make The Difference

By on 19 October 2009

In the preface of “The Shriver Report,” Maria Shriver’s report on women, John D. Podesta, President and CEO of Center for American Progress, makes important points, starting with basics:

Women becoming primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners changed everything.But, even though we were all witness to this phenomenon’s slow emergence over many years, these changes seem somehow to have snuck up on us. As a result, our policy landscape remains stuck in an idealized past, where the typical family was composed of a married-for-life couple with a full-time breadwinner and full-time homemaker who raised the children herself.

Government policies and laws continue to rely on an outdated model of the American family. And, despite the existence of innovative practices in corporate America, most employers fail to acknowledge or accommodate the daily juggling act their workers perform, they are oblivious to the fact that their employees are now more likely to be women, and they ignore the fact that men now share in domestic duties.

Then Maria Shriver delves deeper.

ScreenHunter_43 Oct. 19 12.02

The statistics don’t lie, as they are modern women’s reality, which Shriver proves in her report:

Quite simply, as women go to work, everything changes. Yet, we, as a nation, have not yet digested what this all means and what changes are still to be made. But change we must, especially as the current recession amplifies and accelerates these trends throughout our economy and society. The Great Recession led to massive job losses, especially within male-dominated industries. Since the recession began in December 2007, men have accounted for three out of every four jobs lost (73.6 percent)4 and now 2 million wives are supporting their families while their unemployed husbands seek work.5 Women now, for the first time, make up half (49.9 percent as of July 2009) of all workers on U.S. payrolls. This is a dramatic change from just over a generation ago: In 1969, women made up only a third of the workforce (35.3 percent).6

With the backing of the Shriver name, American Progress took on Mrs. Shriver’s charge, with the subject matter vitally important.

I’ve been writing, talking and speaking out on the cataclysmic shifts in the lives of women most of my adult life. A revolution that started with Betty Friedan, but exploded when the Pill was made available and women got control over our lives. Long before Roe v. Wade came Griswold, the seminal legal decision for women in Supreme Court history.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”. – Wikipedia

Growing up within the modern feminist movement, my views on privacy and women’s rights are embedded in my politics and are revealed in everything I do, particularly foreign policy.

Nicholas Kristof’s “Half the Sky movement” is about this very thing, which he founded along with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn.

It has been proven over and over again that without women being empowered in developing nations the country they’re in cannot achieve stability. Kristof has compiled a list of groups that help women in developing countries, two of which TM.com sponsors by offering a free banner on the homepage of this site. It’s a way you can easily get involved and make a difference for women in developing nations.

One of my favorite groups is Afghan Institute of Learning, but there are many more.

As we debate our policy in Afghanistan, it’s critical to look beyond simply keeping women from being brutalized. Our imperative now is to promote their health and educational vitality so Afghan women and girls can become a force in Afghanistan. The only chance this country (or any other) has for moving beyond the war cycle, with our own policy deeply in need of a more progressive and enlightened approach than simply reverting to the “withdrawal of troops” syndrome, which is hopelessly mired in Vietnam thinking. We must realize that security can come without escalation if a broader eye is cast upon how funding is allotted and delivered to the people of nations we must support in order for the national security of our own country to remain secure and the American people safe.

Maria Shriver’s report is as timely as it is important. It’s thrilling to have a well known and recognizable woman, a superstar in many circles, out front and speaking out through a serious study on women in America, because it raises the attention on the debate people like me have been trying to spur on in the shadows for a very long time.

Nothing is as important to America than understanding the expanded role of women. It is this very realization of women’s expanding role that is rippling through the world and why our continued effort in Afghanistan is critically important. Not only to Afghan girls and women, but to American national security, as well as the security of the region and the world community.

Read full story · Comments are closed

On Public Option, It’s Up to Obama

By on 19 October 2009

–updated–

Senate Republicans, acknowledging they lack the votes to block a health care reform bill outright, have implemented a comprehensive political strategy to delay, define and derail. … – Roll Call

And it always has been. After all, he’s got a majority in Congress and the presidency. You can’t get more power at your disposal than that.

Yesterday, before the White House had the chance to send their people to the Sunday shows to dismiss the public option and its importance, I was purposefully pitching it on Washington Journal, saying simply that if Pres. Obama wants it all he has to do is have Harry Reid put it in the final bill. That he’s decided to abdicate his leadership role is becoming apparent:

Late last night the New York Times filed the report saying Obama’s decided to side with insurance companies over what a majority of the American people want.

The White House will not commit to health care legislation that would cap insurance premiums or tax benefits, taking a wait-and-see approach as congressional negotiators seek a deal, advisers said Sunday.

President Barack Obama will not demand that a final bill include a government-run plan as a way of driving down costs through competition, though that’s his preference, they said. …

Well, at least Republicans will be happy. Mr. Obama’s ode to bipartisanship, no doubt.

”It’s not the defining piece of health care. It’s whether we achieve both cost control, coverage, as well as the choice,” Emanuel said. – Adviser: Obama Awaiting Finished Health Care Bill

As I’ve been saying and writing since the primaries, Barack Obama is not an ideologue, so he never had any intention of fighting for policy principles from the Democratic standpoint that we have the answers on how government should run to the benefit of the people. He is a consensus builder, taking ideas from both sides and crafting compromises. The President of Cool simply prefers kumbaya.

The problem is that when you’ve been given a majority it’s your job to lead, not cut deals when you don’t have to because you’re afraid of putting down your marker. But then again, when you don’t have an ideological core, compromise also becomes the easier and sometimes is the only guide.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Washington Journal Today

By on 18 October 2009

–bumped–

cspan_leadin_1009

UPDATE: You can watch the entire Sunday Washington Journal on the web, which includes the other guests today as well.

Thanks to Peter, John and everyone at Washington Journal who make it so very easy. Thanks also to Tim Carney, who was a pleasant surprise from the Rep. v. Dem shoot outs I’ve done over many years, where the right wing guy is always interrupting. Of course, it was the Washington Journal, so a little class was in order.

Appreciate all the emails coming in and extremely gratified to all the C-SPAN viewers who called in. The hate mail is losing out to the “I’m on your side” crowd, I’m pleased to say. One example comes from Tommy B:

PS, the gentleman caller who stated you laugh at the people you disagree with is incorrect. Watch the tape and you can plainly see that you laughed as people you agree with as well. He was just trying a third grade trick to throw you off your game – congrats that you didn’t fall for that sophomoric tactic.

Even heard from someone who was originally from Joplin, MO., where my dad’s side of the family hailed. Small world. Thanks Kathe K for your kind words, as well as RichardL from Arkansas who wanted me to remind everyone to go to Open Secrets to get the truth about Sen. Blanche Lincoln and others where donations and medical industry converge.

One gentleman who called in had a problem with my laugh. If you know me you’d get that it’s just part of who I am. The “pro-cackle” comments are winning handily.

I love your cackle! It made me feel so good to hear a liberal having a good time at the expense of the republicans. Thank you tea baggers and deathers and birthers for that! Hehehehe. I love these loonies. That take away all my hatred and collective consciousness that I had previously fed into the system. Now I enoy the ride like you. We have Truth on ou side. We are on the right side of history. We can not go wrong. The other (dark) side knows this and will continue to suffer until they end their selfish ways. So I say suffer and learn tea baggers. Hehehehe. – Todd

As for you “tea party activists,” as Peter labeled them today, sticks and stones, babe. Our side is still winning and even though I’ve got lots of complaints, I’m proud to be a Democratic progressive, because your side has no solutions at all.

Feel free to join the conversation “In the News,” our diary and comment section around here. Easy to join and express yourself. Lake Lady put up a diary on the show, so jump in.

Thanks again for all the emails and comments, including those who jumped in on Twitter!

CONTACT TAYLOR

~~~~~original post below~~~~~~

For you Sunday morning early birds and political junkies, I’ll be on Washington Journal tomorrow from 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. eastern time, which is indecently early on the west coast. The conservative will be Tim Carney.

I’ve had a slew of invites lately, but this is the first one that has worked out time wise for everyone involved. Topics will range from health care to the economy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also Iraq and counterinsurgency, with a little Virginia, New Jersey talk possible, too.

It should be fun. I’ll certainly enjoy hearing from regular Washington Journal watchers.


Originally posted on 10.17 @ 3:22 pm

Read full story · Comments are closed

Warnings

By on 18 October 2009

David Rohde has begun to unwind his harrowing tale of being inside the Pakistani Taliban’s grip. We’ll have to wait to see how it unfolds, but so far he’s making McChrystal’s counterinsurgency point pretty well, but also the points of progressives who are after Obama to work faster and harder on Gitmo and other related issues. One small portion of Rohde’s terrifying journey:

… FOR the next seven months and 10 days, Atiqullah and his men kept the three of us hostage. We were held in Afghanistan for a week, then spirited to the tribal areas of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Atiqullah worked with Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of one of the most hard-line factions of the Taliban. The Haqqanis and their allies would hold us in territory they control in North and South Waziristan.

[...] My captors harbored many delusions about Westerners. But I also saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban. Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged. America, Europe and Israel preached democracy, human rights and impartial justice to the Muslim world, they said, but failed to follow those principles themselves.

By all reports, the northwest tribal area of Pakistan is not the place you want to find yourself. Hardcore Taliban in this area, where bin Laden could be, are not people with which you can negotiate, very different from Afghan Taliban. It’s Taliban like Haqqani that have infiltrated the ISI and even though the Pakistan government is stepping up, now in the process of what could be a two-month operation in the region to take them on, which will take them into bitter winter, it remains to be seen if this is too little too late.

Of course, Rohde never expected to find himself in this situation, which also illustrates the joined nature of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also their differences.

On Afghanistan, Sen. John Kerry just let fly a warning shot over Pres. Obama’s bow:

“Look, it would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don’t even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we’re working in,” Kerry said from the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Obama’s fending off a lot of incoming from allies, from “Bush III” and George W. Bush being invoked to simple dissent from teachers’ unions, AFSCME’s Gerry McEntee, to op-ed columnists and everywhere in beyond and in between. Warning signs abound and they’re coming from friendlies.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Disgruntled Democrats

By on 17 October 2009
donkeybraying

Be careful what you wish for goes the old saying. The compliment in politics that applies today is: Be careful what you promise. A Democratic congressional majority, plus the presidency is a wonderful thing, but only if you use the power to implement policies you pledged to enact.

Byron York is one of the first to write about, even if he doesn’t fully understand it, that the power new media wields no longer makes us the “Internet fringe,” but has manifested because we now reflect the feelings of Democrats across this country.

The feud is entertaining for the media, but the Democrats face a very real problem: Dissatisfaction with the party has spread beyond the Internet fringe. Recent Gallup polling shows that Congress’ job approval among Democrats plunged in September, from 54 percent to 36 percent — an 18-point drop in the course of a single month.

There simply can’t be that many people in pajamas. Mainstream, non-progressive, non-pajama Democrats are now decidedly unhappy with the performance of their leaders in Congress. The presence of unbeatable Democratic majorities — 256 Democrats in the House and 60 in the Senate, backed up by a Democratic president — has made rank-and-file Democrats less, rather than more, satisfied.

That’s because the Democratic majority and Pres. Obama are not delivering on promises and pledges through the power we gave them.

The annoyance reached critical mass when Pres. Obama underestimated and allowed Sarah Palin’s “death panel” squeal to monopolize the summer, with the tea party brawlers the next to hit, until the White House finally figured out they’d better strike back.

However, when the public weighed in on health care supporting the public option overwhelming, and leaders of the Democratic Party from Obama to Reid to the Democratic caucus were unwilling to take the reigns and run with it, the annoyance bubbled over with progressive and online activists taking over the leadership role themselves.

There’s a reason people elected Democrats. To get something done. The sad fact is that they have not delivered tangible results on very key issues even with the majority they were handed starting with health care, but also ending the Iraq war. Then there is DADT, closing Gitmo, and on and on, with Afghanistan now seen as Obama’s Iraq, as it becomes more and more unpopular.

Another real issue, on which the Huffington Post has led, is Obama’s bailouts coupled with the stories of continuing record bonuses, Treasury’s complicity in lack of financial transparency, and what is seen as wholesale looting of the American taxpayers’ wallet. With no job growth in sight.

We worked to get this majority and the Democrats in charge of using it are screwing up badly. It’s no secret. People are pissed.

And while I appreciate very much the power of Obama’s speeches, the latest given at a $30,000 a plate DNC fundraiser, though you could pay much less to attend a reception and hear the speech, which listed his accomplishments along with red meat partisan rhetoric. It came after visiting New Orleans, which is still a mess four years later, with Obama telling the crowd he couldn’t write a check to help them out, because of the U.S. Constitution and Congress.

If you can bail out the banks, Mr. President, you can sure as hell bail out New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama where people’s lives are still in limbo.

So let’s get one thing straight. It’s not our anger that will sink the Democratic majority, contrary to what Byron York writes. It’s that if the Democratic majority and Pres. Obama don’t listen to us they will have not only ignored the people who gave them the power, but in turning away from what we want will doom Democrats to lose it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Money, Weapons and Pakistan

By on 17 October 2009

–bumped and updated–

–UPDATE for 10.17– The military had been planning the operation for months, amassing nearly 30,000 troops in the area and attempting to soften targets with aerial strikes. Military officials and security experts estimate that between 5,000 and 10,000 “hardcore” Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents are based in the area, which the United States views as a terrorism hub and has targeted with unmanned drone strikes. The offensive comes after two weeks of bloody militant attacks killed more than 100 people in Pakistan, assaults that officials say are nearly all planned in South Waziristan. A U.S. missile strike in August that killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, had temporarily slowed insurgent attacks, but the recent spate of violence made it clear the group had reorganized. – Pakistan Army Launches Ground Assault

when_the_shit_hits_the_fan_3215952

Heh… hearts and minds, indeed.

But talk about touchy. Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Berman had to release a statement that basically said their $7.5 billion aid bill, which Obama signed today, wasn’t meant to appear like a down payment on Pakistan.

Yes, that’s snark, but as much as people ruminate over Pakistan and that al Qaeda is actually quartered there, which it is, along with a particularly virulent Pakistani Taliban strain, one has to wonder if U.S. foreign policy minds have had the thinking portion of their brains removed.

A story out of the daily Pakistan News has an alarming report for everyone involved.

The US embassy has been found involved in importing sophisticated weapons to Pakistan without the permission and knowledge of the authorities here. … According to a source, Musharraf had given so much liberty to the Americans after 9/11 that different government departments and agencies started directly dealing with the Americans. As a result, nobody knew what the other was doing. This situation, it is said, led to the governmentís ignorance about what the US embassy was doing. … (read more)

All righty then.

Considering everyone has tied their rhetorical harangues in knots over Obama possibly sending more troops to Afghnistan, I’d say there is a much better case to make there than there is in escalating money, weapons and troops (reported recently as many as 3,000 Marines for the Islamabad embassy) into Pakistan. A country, let me add, that has a weak leader, with Islamic militants woven inside ISI (and always has, let me add), as well as nuclear weapons. All the better for the U.S. presence, right? Hardly, especially since the militancy has increased over the last years, with U.S. leverage in Pakistan dwindling. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s not.

Segue to Laura Rozen who’s got this right:

But it does raise the question of whether a central Holbrooke assumption that expanding the U.S. government presence in Pakistan, growing the embassy, bestowing billions of dollars in aid directly by US personnel to Pakistani entities, having more US government personnel on the ground, etc. might rather than be a reassuring sign to the Pakistanis, have the opposite effect, and play into the hands of anti American constituencies there. So far, it’s fair to say the evidence has been thin to zilch that the assumption that a bigger U.S. presence is making the U.S. more beloved in Pakistan is proving correct.

Yes, Pakistan has nukes and people are nervous. But as Laura points out, does anyone think it’s a good idea to make Al Qaeda’s case for them through a muscular U.S. presence in Pakistan?

It’s a very bad idea.

UPDATE: AP chronicles major attacks inside Pakistan, so far in October.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Political Smackdowns of the Week

By on 16 October 2009

“”What is moving through on the House side is a bill that supposedly has a new rule, but has so many loopholes that the loophole eats the rule. We want to say we have transparency and regulation, but it will continue to have loopholes. … The Treasury Department should be ashamed of themselves, said Cantwell, “they have blessed this deal.” – Huffington Post

Three selections today, though there are many more that could be included. Sen. Maria Cantwell getting the big prize with her performance today on Dylan Ratigan’s “Morning Meeting,” which is better than a shot of espresso for waking up. She savaged the House bill under Rep. Barney Franks leadership that is being talked about as making matters worse, according to experts. Franks’ “This isn’t finished yet, so it’s irresponsible to talk about loopholes” response is not only embarrassing, but hardly the point. The loopholes exist now. I particularly enjoyed Cantwell’s slap at Treasury, because Tim Geithner deserves all possible derision.

As for Franks, read Michael Hirsh of Newsweek:

Wall Street can’t govern itself. We know that now. So you might think that the authorities in Washington would tell the Wall Street lobby where to stick it and insist on a lot more clarity when it comes to trading in derivatives, which until now has been almost entirely unencumbered by government. That appeared to be what the Obama administration was asking for last June when it demanded that all standardized over-the-counter derivatives be traded on an open and supervised exchange, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as the sole judges of what is standardized. That way authorities would know most of what was being traded and could make sure the major players weren’t getting in over their heads. But thanks to weeks of intense pressure from Wall Street banks and their customers in corporate America, the bill that was approved on Thursday by Rep. Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee is riddled with exceptions and loopholes, many critics say. If it becomes law, Wall Street’s finest could be driving truckloads of new derivatives products through those loopholes for years to come.

Jon Stewart gets the next two slots for two of the best performances he’s delivered. The Al Franken anti rape bill rant by Stewart (covering a subject from last week) is a classic and defining moment if you want to simplify Democrats v. Republicans. Because it’s hard to believe Republican senators could justify voting against a gang rape bill, though since they don’t understand the role of government in people’s lives it’s not all that shocking when you think about it. It makes it so clear that women who vote Republican are like the people who listen to Rush and Sean (and Mark Levine) buying into their fantasy that voting Republican will actually make them rich one day. Gay and lesbian Republicans are similarly… er, delusional when it comes to their own civil rights. For the record, Republicans voting pro rape were: Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS). Remember, it’s Republicans who also voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act, too. Civil rights, especially where women are concerned, are not a Republican priority, especially when you compare them to, say, corporate defense contractors.

The last Stewart video makes a good case for a change in media programming. Vamping minute by minute makes you lazy and can get you in trouble. Ask anyone who has ever had to fill an hour of time, which I have, let alone multiple hours, how difficult it becomes day after day. Sloppy TV is the result. Jon Stewart proves it.

Editing Note: Videos now linked within post above, due to download issues of previously embedded content.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Women of the GOP

By on 16 October 2009

“So I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing, but apparently anything other than a pantsuit, I am a slut,” she Twittered. – Meghan McCain twitter photo backlash leads to apology

After Meghan “Don’t Call Me A Slut” McCain’s Twitter photo fiasco, Kathleen Parker must be so embarrassed. Parker’s column yesterday, “Time for GOP Women” reading even more like an Onion article today. Never mind that Ms. McCain willingly, knowingly and proudly set herself up for this by putting up this type photo in the first place. But considering conservatives are the biggest consumers of porn in the U.S., maybe Meghan McCain is foxy crazy.

As to Mrs. Parker’s advice to the GOP that “The answer is . . . drum roll, please . . . women,” I’ve been saying this for years, which is the case well beyond our own borders. But the cast of female characters in the GOP play of Parker’s choosing isn’t exactly worthy of a drum roll, let alone fanfare announced yesterday in her Washington Post column.

First, Mrs. Parker trumpets Meg Whitman, who admits openly that her voting record is “unacceptable”, with it reported she wasn’t even registered to vote until 2002. I guess it’s possible for someone so uninterested in public participation in government to be a good governor, but it’s hardly something to recommend for Parker’s Look to the Women of the GOP campaign. Hey, but Republicans do love money people, even those who are clueless about politics and policy.

Carly Fiorina comes next, a woman whose voting record is just as bad Whitman’s, because between 1989 and 1999 she didn’t vote at all. Fiorina also campaigned aggressively for John McCain, and in an interview with me defended McCain’s vote against equal pay for women (as well as his anti civil rights stance against women). Now, I like Ms. Fiorina, but she’s going to need more than this along with her defense of what happened at HP to beat Sen. Boxer.

megan-mccain_gawker
via Gawker, click for large shot

The irony of having Meghan McCain on Parker’s list, considering Mrs. Parker was the first conservative to lambast Sarah Palin, is just too delicious. Ms. McCain has certainly been outspoken on Republicans needing to open their tent, with everyone fawning over the young woman’s contrarian views, but politicians require good instincts and judgment, something Ms. McCain seems to be sorely lacking. Cindy could have warned her. Sure Ms. McCain can learn, but the obvious question to ask Mrs. Parker is what wonk power John McCain’s daughter brings to the table beyond her gift for gab and big… er… good looks? Though that hasn’t stopped Republican know nothing stars like now disgraced Jon Ensign.

Saving the best for last, Mrs. Parker exalts Liz Cheney, which is hardly shocking. After all, daddy built her a resume just for this type of occasion, even if Mrs. Cheney wasn’t smart enough even after her “job experience” at State not to fall prey to an “honor killing” hoax that someone of her supposed “job experience” should have been able to sense. That Mrs. Cheney didn’t even know the geography of Jordan is a bit weird, but Liz lending her name to the flimflam gal so she could get papers is even worse. But at least Parker finally picked someone who actually has a voting history showing citizen participation. That Liz Cheney is fact challenged wouldn’t bother Parker, because that’s the only package neocons come in.

Alas, Sarah Palin doesn’t make Parker’s list, though considering who does she’s certainly a good fit.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rush ‘Crashed and Burned’

By on 15 October 2009

–updated–

… [...] This is just an attack on all of us who are conservatives. Look, they’re scared. Conservatism is in ascendancy. Conservatism is rising. Conservatism is growing. Obama’s in trouble, folks. You can’t take the politics out of me in this, ’cause it’s not about the National Football League. It’s just the latest vehicle for them to go after me. – Rush Limbaugh

Oh, the indignity.

A man from on high brought to such depths.

A darling, a conservative favorite failing so utterly and publicly.

Rush Limbaugh brought low as you can go.

Never fear, his audience, his adoring fans are here. In fact, Rush is now his audience: Earlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned. …

A man who daily immortalizes himself on radio has been brought level with his listeners.

After years of accolades. Being told of his greatness. …as he looks in the mirror. Mr. Limbaugh has learned that even his millions won’t buy him love.

What makes this episode even worse?

It was the players’ UNION that shot the first arrow at the little boy from Missouri’s NFL balloon.

And hell hath no fury like Limbaugh spurned. Rush’s rampage began yesterday.

But no matter what he says it won’t change that his fans know he “crashed and burned.”

Rush is now Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Middle East Muddle

By on 15 October 2009

–updated–

Reports out of the Middle East are disheartening with regard to negotiation possibilities going forward.

After nine months of shuttle diplomacy by U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell, the gap between Israeli and Palestinian leaders appears to have grown, and it now includes not only a dispute over Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, but also renewed tension over Jerusalem, disagreement over the framework for the talks and controversy over a U.N. report on alleged war crimes during Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter.

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell report to the White House next week on the administration’s goal of restarting the peace talks, they will be describing a situation that has arguably regressed, particularly in the three weeks since a high-level session in New York involving President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

So, I have absolutely no idea where Fareed Zakaria gets his optimism, let alone the nonsensical witticism, “There’s light. There’s just no tunnel.”

The problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Zakaria said, is not a lack of vision for the future, but a disagreement over how to get there. While some believe there is no light at the end of tunnel, Zakaria said, “There’s light. There’s just no tunnel.”

The ideas are good, just no way to get there?

It was disastrous that after starting out firm on settlements, Pres. Obama caved, which came as months and months ticked off without anything concrete happening.

The problem was illuminated yesterday during a call I was on with Sen. Arlen Specter, when he uttered the usual line about Netanyahu and settlements. The back and forth went like this:

Taylor Marsh: Would you give your thoughts on the Obama drawing the line on the settlement freeze?

Specter: “Netanyahu has a point… had assurances on settlements from both Bush and Clinton.” … “What constitutes an enlargement.” …”Israelis willing to give up quite a lot… Not in east Jerusalem.” Bigger issues involve Iran and their nuclear weapons. “(Obama’s) got one of the smartest guys on the case, George Mitchell.” … “I would tell him to listen to Joe Biden who knows a lot on the issue.”

Specter’s a smart man who is spouting a very old line that’s gotten us nowhere. He has lots of company on that one. And because the conversation yesterday was just that, focusing almost entirely on healthcare, it wasn’t conducive for me to start battling it out with him on settlements and all things Middle East. But it’s preposterous for any person interested in moving negotiations forward to postulate that “Iran and their nuclear weapons” is more important to negotiating a Palestinian state than an agreement on settlements. It is for the Israelis.

Secondly, Sen. Specter saying “Netanyahu has a point… had assurances on settlements from both Bush and Clinton” has already been rebutted firmly by the Obama administration through Secretary Clinton:

“There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements,” Clinton said at a June 5 news conference (in Washington). “If they did occur, which of course people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States government.” – Bloomberg

Now, I’m not trying to pick on Sen. Specter, as he is simply stating the conventional wisdom of most in Congress, while also illustrating why we never get anywhere. As to Specter’s “what constitutes and enlargement,” well, I reject his Which came first, the chicken or the egg language.

Complicating all of this was the Goldstone report, which even the administration tried their hardest to ignore.

But let me be blunt about why we’re in such a muddle. Pres. Obama sent strong signals to the Palestinians when he came out for the settlement freeze. The Israeli press went wild, obliterating his support in Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians (and other Arabs and Muslims) started trusting him. Abbas, specifically, has now been weakened with Obama’s cave in on settlements, compounded when the Obama administration asked the Palestinians to delay debating the Goldstone report at the U.N. Human Rights Council for six months. Now the Palestinians are ticked off, with Abbas hobbled as a result. Israelis who are thinking short-term only like the results.

From the Washington Post report:

The rival Islamist Hamas movement, which runs the Gaza Strip, has tried to capitalize on Abbas’s troubles. His term expires in January, and with no clear schedule for new elections, there is growing likelihood that some sort of interim arrangement will be needed to keep him in power.

The Israeli government has taken notice of Abbas’s difficulties. Two weeks ago, as the war crimes report was heading to apparent endorsement by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Israeli officials issued blistering statements accusing Abbas and the Palestinians of incitement against them and demanding that the report be withdrawn.

But after Abbas supported the delay in the council’s consideration of the report, orders went down through the Israeli Foreign Ministry and elsewhere to halt criticism of the Palestinian leader. “It was very dramatic, substantial and quick,” said an Israeli government official, who spoke about the issue on the condition of anonymity. “It took a perverse turn.”

It’s quite possible Obama’s credibility has been weakened as well, which if true would be incredibly sad.

However, once you draw a line in the Middle East sand, erasing it is impossible unless you want to also obliterate your own credibility in manifesting results, as well as those of your allies.

If things stay as they are today, which I hope won’t happen and George Mitchell will pull a miracle out of his hat, all of this could be pushed to the 2012 re-election campaign season, as next year is an election year as well, with mid-terms promising to be brutal for Democrats, especially in voter turnout.

Expect more promises.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu continues his waiting game. The neocons are coming.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What’s the Point of 60 Votes?

By on 15 October 2009

“Senator Reid is focused on crafting a health care bill that will overcome a Republican filibuster. Stripping Democratic Senators of their leadership titles is a decision that would be left up to the Caucus, not Senator Reid. In light of this reality it’s unlikely that the Caucus would ever go along with this idea.” – Jim Manley, Harry Reid’s spokesman

harry_reid

Republican filibuster? Huh?

I’m with Markos all the way on this one:

Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared. Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place, even when enjoying razor-thin majorities.

Yet when Democrats took the chamber, the first thing Harry Reid did was complain that he couldn’t do anything because he didn’t have 60 votes. …

Lyndon Johnson is using Senate Majority Leader Reid’s picture in hell for target practice.

Sen. Harry Reid may be the worst majority leader ever to occupy the title. The man can’t even count. With only 40 Republicans in the Senate, there is no such thing as a Republican filibuster. Of course, he’s obviously convinced a lot of people that this nonsense will fly. Not around here. Read David Waldman. What’s even worse is that Democrats are inviting Olympia Snowe into the conference giving her a place at the table she didn’t earn.

It’s enough to make a good Democrat turn Independent.

We give these idiots the power to control Congress, but what do they do? Turn the decision making process over to Olympia Snowe.

Anyone buying this is part of the problem and will own the aftermath.

Senator Reid is abdicating his job to Olympia Snowe. Hey, but Rahm Emanuel Pres. Obama evidently thinks that’s just a great idea.

What a feckless bunch of Democrats own the majority. If they let this continue they deserve to lose it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

On the Record with Arlen Specter

By on 14 October 2009

–updated–

specter

Talking with Sen. Arlen Specter on a small, select new media call.

Live report, with verbatim account of the call is below, with final thoughts at the end of this post.

Introductions begun… Opening statement from Specter, “the big issue on the agenda is comprehensive health care. … public option… “transformational medicine…”

Eve G: “I want to get into your heart. Do you have the heart of a Democrat?”

Specter: Parents were an FDR Democrat… “I was a JFK Democrat. … In the Senate I tried to bring back moderation…” I’ve been more aligned On the stimulus, I just couldn’t stand with the Republicans. Biden and Rendell have tried to convince him for years. “If you examine my heart I think you’ll find more Democratic heart than anything.”

Steve Benen: Are you prepared to make commitments on the long run?

Specter: “I was always a Salmon swimming upstream with the Republicans. … I was called a RINO for years.”

Taegan Goddard: 31% of Penn think you should be re-elected, comment?

Specter: Everybody’s poll numbers have been going down. “Obama’s down under 50 in Pennsylvania.” … “Listen, I’m in a race, I make no bones about it.”

Taylor Marsh: Introduced myself (lonely feminist hawk on Afghanistan, yada-yada-yada). Asked Specter about Afghanistan; withdrawal, talking to Taliban.

Specter: Need answers to whether Afghanistan is indispensable in stopping Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be a base? Yes, talk to the Taliban; talked to Arafat, Asad, many others. Talking to Biden; did so today. Not for withdrawal. Need answers to questions. Listening to Biden. People in National Security Council know a lot more than the Gang of Eight.

After he finished, later, asked another question re: Aid groups, getting money directly to the Afghans, and that if we can’t help the women Afghanistan won’t be stable. –pause– Didn’t speak to that specifically, turning the question to Karzai’s corruption, his brother’s illegal behavior… He wasn’t as comfortable with this thorny situation as he was with the question I asked on Israeli settlements – see below. Then went back to an interesting exchange he had with Pres. Musharraf rebuffing him in a conversation they had immediately after Bhutto’s assassination, when he traveled to Pakistan with colleagues. He continued saying the whole issue is very difficult, then eventually he stopped.

Specter: “Anyone have an easy question?” he asked, which pretty much said it all on the subject.

… ..

Eve G: Opt-out, trigger? Reconciliation?

Specter: “To answer that question would weaken my bargaining position in the Senate.” Reconciliation is “last, last, last option.”

Eve G: So, you could vote for a bill with a trigger?

Specter: “I don’t want to give Olympia Snowe too much power.”

Susie Madrak: “No coherent narrative to make this jump… (to Democrat)” Know your history, so get it. To consider a trigger, “I’d love to see you show some leadership on this…”

Eve G: “I agree!”

Specter:“When someone wasn’t screaming at me, I made those points.” Continues talking about his history fighting for healthcare and NIH, health care funding… Shared his history of health challenges… Code blue at one point, water in his lung… “You’ve seen my bald head on TV.”

Susie Madrak: I want you to share your passions in the Senate. Casey more a Republican than you are.

Specter: I’ll put that in my pipe and smoke it … and I’ll go look at the record and if I haven’t said enough I’ll consider doing more.

Eve G: Referenced Mary Landreiu’s comment today about “no free lunch.” You need to tell Mary Landrieu that you have good health care because you’re in the system. Speak to your colleagues and remind them others aren’t as fortunate.

Susie warned Specter that people will turn on the Democrats if health care reform isn’t good.

Both Susie and Eve are Pennsylvanians zeroing in on Specter and health care. The conversation was in depth and Specter engaged both openly.

The conversation continued… and, yes, I asked about obesity, my one health care question. He said you can’t penalize the obese who can’t help themselves; also talking about his son being a clinician on health care.

Someone asked how she could make a difference in what Senators do. Specter said that when he opposed Bork he got 160,000 letters… .. “Begin with calling Mary Landrieu.”

Taylor Marsh: Would you give your thoughts on the Obama drawing the line on the settlement freeze?

Specter: “Netanyahu has a point… had assurances on settlements from both Bush and Clinton.” … “What constitutes an enlargement.” …”Israelis willing to give up quite a lot… Not in east Jerusalem.” Bigger issues involve Iran and their nuclear weapons. “(Obama’s) got one of the smartest guys on the case, George Mitchell.” … “I would tell him to listen to Joe Biden who knows a lot on the issue.”

The call was to be 30 minutes. It lasted almost an hour, even after an aide warned of bad traffic. Specter commented on giving “you guys reporter’s privileges” if he can get his bill through. It was clear he enjoyed the call.

Now for the review on Sen. Specter…. The impression I received from talking, but also listening to Sen. Specter, can be said in three words, which I said on the call: “You surprised me, Senator.” Okay, four words. Sure, he’s been doing this a long time, but you can’t fake transparency and willingness to listen, or the obvious enjoyment he has when engaging us. My focus very different from the others, but he didn’t get whiplash from going from health care to Afghanistan and back again, then changing subjects back to Israel and settlements, which he talked much more fluently about than he did on the specific issues I raised on getting money to aid groups and NGOs inside Afghanistan and to the Afghan people. There’s a reason he asked if anyone had an easy question after that one. Perhaps he can ask Joe Biden about it next time he talks to him. I’d like to know.

So, after beginning questions from several on the call about Specter’s Democratic loyalties, that issue melted away. Talking to Specter was like talking to a politician who’d finally found home.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan Without Escalation

By on 14 October 2009

obama_sitmeeting
via the White House

Watching Frontline’s hour on Afghanistan – Pakistan, I didn’t expect to learn anything, as I study this stuff daily, listening to experts from all over for months and months. But it’s always sobering to see and hear what’s happening from people there as it’s being filmed. I remain against adding more troops as much as I am that we continue the mission, trying to figure out how it can be done, while Holbrooke works through his Pakistan plan, which isn’t exactly getting raves from the Pakistanis.

On Afghanistan, Fred Kaplan lays it out.

The first would be to prevent the Taliban from taking over the central government, which is the main reason for having Western troops there at all.

The second would be to create “demonstration zones” for the eyes of Afghans all over the country. If these zones really can be secured and supplied, if they are seen as enclaves of relative peace and prosperity, then Afghans everywhere will want the same thing and reject the Taliban (whose strength today stems less from their fundamentalist ideology than from their ability to provide order and services).

Meanwhile, under this alternative approach, U.S. and NATO forces would keep training Afghan soldiers and police, while special-ops troops and air power would continue to take out “high-value targets” such as top Taliban fighters (even pure counterinsurgency advocates don’t think counterterrorist tactics should be cut off completely).

Nobody is going to get all that they want on this one. …and whatever we do nobody is sure it will work.

Read full story · Comments are closed

RNC Scrubs Hitler Tweet

By on 14 October 2009

“We saw the video this morning and thought, like other parodies, that it was funny. In 20-20 hindsight, we realized it was in poor taste and pulled it down… I don’t want anyone to think we’re comparing Democrats to Nazis and to Hitler.” – via Glenn Thrush

On the same day Republicans launch a petition to “fire Nancy Pelosi,” they also use Twitter to circulate a video link that utilizes Hitler to attack Obama’s health care reform plans, as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And we thought the Steele’s Pelosi “Pussy Galore” stunt was bad.

Oh, but not to worry, they have apologized.

Via CNN, the DCCC was livid: “House Republicans have gone way too far. The NRCC’s despicable promotion of a video comparing Speaker Pelosi’s effort to reform health insurance in America to Adolf Hitler’s extermination of millions is a shocking new low that must be condemned,” said DCCC spokeswoman Jennifer Crider. “Republican Leader John Boehner should order NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions to immediately remove this vile Tweet and apologize.”

I seem to recall the Republican fury when some yahoo entered a MoveOn.org commercial contest by submitting a Hitler parody video that utilized Pres. George W. Bush. It was a despicable entry that was pulled, but that didn’t stop the RNC from ranting for days about it, with the help of Fox News Channel and right-wing radio. Selective outrage has always been one of their specialties, now just add 20-20 hilarious Hitler hindsight.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Russia Hedges on Iran Sanctions

By on 13 October 2009

After Obama backed away from missile defense, with the news of Iran’s newest nuclear revelations, the President had received signs from Medvedev that Russia might consider sanctions against Iran. However, today in Russia they clearly brushed Clinton off.

That noise you hear is Liz Cheney and her “Keep America Safe” characters clucking over it. As you’ll see in the video, complete with comic voiceover, they’re ready. No doubt the Kremlin’s behavior will incite Liz and her benefactor, Bill Kristol, the father of revolving neocon groups, to ratchet up the chatter against Obama even more.

Secretary Clinton met with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Russia and after the meeting both were asked about sanctions on Iran. The Washington Post reports Lavrov’s response was cool at best:

Emerging from four hours of talks with Clinton, Lavrov told reporters that “threats, sanctions and threats of pressure” against Iran would be “counterproductive.”

State Department has Clinton’s side of the news conference:

QUESTION: On Iran, what did you ask the minister with regard to pressure and sanctions, and did you receive any assurances? … ..

SECRETARY CLINTON: [...] I think what President Medvedev said was that they may be inevitable, not that they are inevitable. He said that they’re not always preferable, but they may be inevitable. But we are not at that point yet. That is not a conclusion we have reached, and we want to be very clear that it is our preference that Iran work with the international community, as represented by the P-5+1, fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they’re doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium. Those would be confidence-building measures, and that would give us an opportunity to take stock of where we are on the diplomatic track.

According to what’s being reported, it seems clear that Russia believes Iran has made concessions worth not only acknowledging, but also rewarding with softer language that pushes sanctions from the discussion, as far as they’re concerned.

Cue Liz Cheney.

That’s just how these things work.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Snowe Votes with Dems on Finance Bill

By on 13 October 2009

–updated–

“The Baucus bill is the best thing the Republicans are going to get.” – Patrick J. Buchanan on MSNBC

developing…

As we wait for the vote tally from the Finance committee, which will give So, Baucus and the Democrats get a win, with Snowe joining in and it’s quite likely that her involvement, which will continue, as will Blanche Lincoln’s, who may become just as important as Snowe, will assure a weaker bill eventually.

After all, why else is Snowe on board unless she wants to make sure she can weigh down what she hates about Democratic health care reform such as the public option? Same with Blanche Lincoln, who isn’t for the public option either.

Obama will be very happy he got Snowe on board. I’m just not so sure it’s a sign we’re actually closer to meaningful health care reform. So, snuggle up to insurance reform, as that’s likely the bottom line.

From The Hill:

“The mark before us today produces bipartisan, landmark reforms,” said Snowe. “The consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of moving a healthcare reform bill. “I happen to think the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress,” she added. “There are many, many miles to go in this legislative journey … At the same time, they want us to continue.”



UPDATE: Baucus bill passes 14 – 9. But proving that Republicans aren’t immune to irony, Orrin Hatch said he’s for health care reform, as are other Republicans, even as every one of the men on the committee voted against it just moments ago.

Title of post changed to reflect updates.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Creigh Deeds is No Jim Webb

By on 13 October 2009

But with this closely-watched election less than a month away, and Mr. Deeds struggling against Robert McDonnell, the Republican former attorney general, it is hard not to forgive some Virginia Democrats for thinking that they might have been better off with Mr. McAuliffe at the top of the ticket. This is no small thing since a defeat for Democrats in Virginia would be a decided setback for this White House, particularly after President Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state last year since 1964. Democrats have held the Virginia governor’s seat for eight years. – Second Thoughts in Battle for Virginia

Republicans are waiting for next month’s Virginia governor’s outcome to begin their foreshadowing of what will be in 2010. As things look today, Democrats are certainly behind the 8 ball, mostly because Barack Obama can’t make up his mind on… anything, with bailout blues hitting across the political spectrum. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate who Virginians chose over better candidates, is also blaming Obama, but for different reasons. The real problem for Democrats in Virginia is that by choosing Deeds they’ve diluted the Democratic brand as far as it can go.

That Deeds can’t beat McDonnell, a man who had Pat Roberson as a mentor, in the age of Obama is a warning. Democrats are choosing horrible candidates they think can seduce voters across the aisle, when the candidates they’re choosing are actually weak on the principles that inspire voters to vote Democratic in the first place.

NotLarrySabato, who has been a Virginia political watcher a long time, nailed it: And to put it bluntly- Creigh Deeds is an absolute pretender. Blue Commonwealth, another veteran Virginia watcher, has more. Jerome Armstrong saying it didn’t have to end this way: The Deeds apologists will tell you that anyone would have been down like this, but that’s just nonsense.

The worst candidate is at the top of the ticket. Moran not much better, because the only way he could knock off McAuliffe was to go so negative the backlash obliterated his own campaign. McAuliffe seen as an interloping big shot who didn’t work his way up and pay his dues, even though he beat out Moran and his blizzard of negativity. My blue collar husband explained to me why McAuliffe got his vote, but Virginia Democrats didn’t buy it. They’re going to lose the governorship because of it.

However, Republicans are taking Deed’s imminent loss as a sign of something else. On this very subject, Kathleen Parker chimed in last week on “Morning Joe,” simultaneously proving she’s a lousy political analyst. Joe reading aloud from her op-ed, “The ‘Women’s Issues’ Deeds Doesn’t Get”, which rambles on about Deeds hitting McDonnell on his thesis that is utterly anti-women, which for Parker is boiled down to this: Women also get it that the economy is a shambles, that the war in Afghanistan is escalating and that the unemployment rate is growing — just to mention a few concerns outside the uterus. Really stupid stuff for someone paid to opine in the Washington Post.

Deeds is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. He’s a fatally weak candidate.

But Virginians have been diluting the Democratic brand over years. From a terrific example of how to wrestle voters to vote their interests, Mark Warner, who was touted as presidential material until he tanked giving the Democratic keynote in last year’s convention; to Tim Kaine, an even worse speaker than Warner who is now Obama’s man at the DNC; and finally, Creigh Deeds. A man who couldn’t take McDonnell’s gift of a thesis that was riven with anti civil rights language against women and use it to his advantage, basically getting beat to death by a commercial rebutting Deeds’ chargers, starring Bob McDonnell’s veteran daughter, whose performance and strengths just might win it for her dad.

This isn’t the be-all answer, but compare Creigh Deeds to Jim Webb, a man who makes people cross the aisle, like Warner did, to vote for him, but also has serious convictions. I can’t imagine Deeds having a PAC called “Born Fighting,” but that’s exactly what was required in this year’s election.

See McDonnell’s daughter, who looks and sounds like a better candidate than both men in the running.

Just look at Jon Corzine, who was counted out. He’s done whatever it takes to try to take the race back and he just might do it. See Jim Webb.

You also can’t keep diluting the brand to someone who is a ghost like image of what you believe a Democrat should look like based on what won in earlier years, when the guy you’re picking is clearly not up to the job. Tim Kaine was a cheap Mark Warner knock off, with Creigh Deeds an even cheaper, lamer knock off of Tim Kaine, with no resemblance whatsoever to Warner, let alone Webb. A political plot line that has clearly run its course.

“The other big issue is electability, and Bob McDonnell has already beaten Creigh Deeds.” – Terry McAuliffe

Read full story · Comments are closed