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 | March, 2010

Massa to Give Glenn Beck Full Hour Tuesday

By on 08 March 2010

“Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once,” Massa said. “Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever.” “I was set up for this from the very, very beginning,” he added. “The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.” – Roll Call


Update: What Massa might say on Beck’s show.

Welcome to another Democratic train wreck, which comes as the New York Time magazine’s piece on Rahm Emanuel hits the web. The latest political disaster coming from Rep. Massa’s resignation from the House, which is getting new legs today.

The swirling scandal of the Massa resignation is now causing a real problem for Democrats. The dueling truth of it making everyone look very bad.

We’ve got an inebriated, salty-talking ex-Navy man who decides to resign before his retirement next year, because he made an ass out of himself at a wedding, which he’s alleging the Democratic leadership leaked.

“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.” – CBS News

Rep. Hoyer emphatically denies Massa’s charge:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa’s staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer’s staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer’s staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa’s staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

This is just perfect.

No one will defend the comments Mr. Massa made, but it’s hardly a revelation that people say and even do inappropriate things at weddings.

However, this back and forth, what we know now, seems not nearly enough to push out a military veteran who served his country, simply for being an ass at a wedding.

Question is, why is Mr. Massa allowing it?

We’ll know tomorrow, because Massa is giving Glenn Beck the full hour, so says Beck via Twitter.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Tough Gal, Kathryn Bigelow, Makes History

By on 08 March 2010

“Now we need to elect a wom(a)n to the US presidency!” – Margot Grimmer (via Facebook)

ScreenHunter_01 Mar. 08 10.24

Well, it’s not the presidency, but it’s history none the less.

The Academy tired of giving it to the guy with all the muscle, choosing a female who built her machine one brick at a time against all odds over him.

Seeing Barbra Steisand hand Kathryn Bigelow the Oscar for best direction, going to a female for the first time in history, you couldn’t help but think of Hillary. Hollywood quenching the thirst of their community for a new kind of acknowledgment that our country still can’t deliver.

I’ve called it the Hillary hole, that space Hillary Clinton’s lost nomination bid left in so many people’s psyche, which has in no way healed.

“24′s” Cherry Jones, who plays the president on the show, the first female to reveal the building tide. “Oh, I would always vote for Hillary,” her comment when asked last September.

Kathryn Bigelow, the tough female director putting together a far flung independent Oscar bid film about war and the heroes who fight it, becoming our fantasy female commander in chief the country is ravenous for it at this point.

Looking at the ineptitude of the Democratic party with its aimless wandering for purpose the last year, who doesn’t long for “Pres. Kathryn Bigelow”?

It’s part of why Sarah Palin is so popular and why her fans are tied to her so strongly. It’s also why she is so dangerous to Democrats.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy did more than make 18 million holes in the hardest glass ceiling on planet earth. It gave a vision to American women of a woman actually competent, strong and ready to fill what has historically been a man’s job. It’s something that women are holding tight in their dreams, while instances continually pop up that provide opportunities to keep the dream alive, even if it is only the Oscars.

While fully realizing it won’t be Hillary Clinton who gets the nod for commander in chief, American audiences of the presidency are glued to the prospect that it’s now a woman’s turn, so eyes are peeled for the first female who can fit the bill.

The disarray of the Obama White House has only made the passion grow. There is no way to imagine a woman doing worse.

The frustration for many in both parties and women is that the only female in the spotlight right now is Sarah Palin, someone people still are not convinced is ready to occupy the oval office. Liz Cheney’s hope of president residing in being chosen vice president or through a Senate bid, which is still years away. But with the sober reality that unqualified men have run for president before and gotten in, why not Sarah? First of all, women will be much tougher on their first potential female nominee, with Mrs. Palin having a lot more convincing to do.

The Democrats won’t have another chance until 2016. Jennifer Granholm a natural who would need a law to make her eligible, but since that same law would open the door for Arnold Schwarzenegger, I’m not so sure anyone would be eager to try it.

However, the Hillary hole is real, that’s for certain, with the only one eligible to fill it in the immediate term a Republican named Sarah Palin. She knows it and is working it. The details won’t much matter if the emotional tide towards a female commander in chief keep building.

While Democrats long for a “President Bigelow,” a woman who is as good as a man in the field of battle. Even if there’s no one yet to cast in that role.

March 8th is International Women’s Day—a day to reflect on the progress the world has made in advancing women’s rights, and to recognize what work remains to be done.

This year marks an anniversary very close to my heart. Fifteen years ago, along with women and men from around the world I attended the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The message from that conference rang loudly and clearly, and still echoes across cultures and continents: Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.

One hundred and eighty-nine countries represented at Beijing adopted a Platform for Action that pledged to increase women’s access to education, healthcare, jobs, and credit, and to protect their right to live free from violence. We have made great progress, but there is a long way to go. Women are still the majority of the world’s poor, unhealthy, underfed, and uneducated. They rarely cause violent conflicts but too often bear their consequences. Women are absent from negotiations about peace and security to end those conflicts. Their voices simply are not being heard.

Today, the United States is making women a cornerstone of foreign policy because we think it’s the right thing to do, but we also believe it’s the smart thing to do as well. Investing in the potential of the world’s women and girls is one of the surest ways to achieve global economic progress, political stability, and greater prosperity for women — and men — the world over.

So on this International Women’s Day, let us rededicate ourselves to advancing and protecting the rights of women and girls, and to join together to ensure that no one is left behind in the 21st century.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Cheeerleading

By on 07 March 2010

Poor Frank Rich. After all this time he still doesn’t get it.

WEDNESDAY’S health care rally was one of President Obama’s finest hours. It was so fine it couldn’t be blighted even by his preposterous backdrop, a cohort of white-jacketed medical workers large enough to staff a hospital in one of the daytime soaps that refused to be pre-empted by the White House show.

Obama’s urgent script didn’t need such cheesy theatrics. … There was only one problem. This finest hour arrived hastily and tardily. At 1:45 p.m. Eastern time, who was watching? Of those who did watch or caught up later, how many bought the president’s vow to finish the job “in the next few weeks”? We’ve heard this too many times before. Last May Obama said he would have a bill by late July. In July he said he wanted it “done by the fall.” The White House’s new date for final House action — specified as March 18 by Robert Gibbs, the press secretary — is already in jeopardy. …

i-heart-cheerleading

Mr. Rich is not only wrong, but in fact Obama’s “urgent script,” after a year of no leadership at all, was not only “cheesy,” to use Rich’s description, but desperate. But these are desperate times for Democrats, who have bungled the last year and counting badly. Though it’s really impossible to take Frank Rich seriously anymore considering he was one of the clueless media mass that applied no objective thinking over the last few years.

Which brings me to a point that needs repeating.

As a political analyst, and not a movement progressive, you will not find any cheerleading from me, except to say that I clap loud, long and hard for liberal ideas and whoever is championing those ideals, that is, whenever the moon is right and some politician loses the elite party ties that bind for a single moment to speak what is worth hearing. I have no intention of propping up weak Democrats who don’t know how to lead or listen to the American people, who, for instance, want a public option, but aren’t being listened to by Pres. Obama or the rest of the Democratic party.

To reiterate, I long ago put away my hyper-partisan spurs, not only because I’m doing different work now that I’m in Washington, but because it no longer interests me, as I find both parties bankrupt, with few politicians in either party worth the effort. The job I do now is simply analyzing the political terrain. Some people are having a hard time adjusting.

The following comment, representative of the inability of some people to understand what I’m now doing, is worth posting as a teaching lesson. From “chazmonk*,” whose righteous indignation is felt by other Democratic choir members who simply cannot accept that the criticism I’m leveling at Pres. Obama and the Democrats is earned.

You go ahead Ms. Marsh, and start voting with the Republicans. You might as well, because ever since your Goddess Queen Hillay Clinton lost the primary, all you do anyway is complain and demonize Obama and the Dems. I often wonder if you would have held her feet to the fire as you do Obama if she was President, though I think we know the ridiculous answer to that, don’t we? Honestly, you used to be one of my 3 favorite blogs; now it’s like getting on some foreign blog I’ve never seen. My only question is this; once you help put in the Romney’s, Palin’s and Ryan’s of the world, will you still bitch and moan so much? Because that’s where we are headed. Jesus, you sound like some talking head like Luntz, who is doing everything he can, through language, to make sure Dems lose out in 2010 and 2012. [...] I know I’ll be burned on the cross over this, but I don’t care anymore. Your seething hatred and anger of HC losing is still with you today, obviously, and it makes you look petty. Gone is the day of Ms. Independent Journalism. Gone, gone, gone.

Ah yes, it’s all because “Goddess Queen Hilla(r)y lost the primary.”

I get it from the unhinged fringe puma on the right, as well as the Obama choir on the left. It simply proves to me I’m doing something right, though that hardly matters, because I’m telling it like I see it. Of course, you’re under no obligation to agree, but to point of motive the tantrums are just absurd. Though the notion that I would ever vote for anyone who doesn’t support women’s self-determination is really one for the books.

The truth is that the current Democratic leadership has not earned the continued support of the people who elected them. It does no good to elect people who are not going to stand by the people who put them in office.

So, if the entire Democratic party is turned out it’s their fault not mine or others who voted for them. You have shown them the way, whether it’s the public option, getting out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, DADT, Wall Street-BigPhrma-Insurance company coziness, you name it. Pres. Obama and the Democratic establishment has ignored you, but now they expect you to save them, because Republicans are worse, thinking that because Democrats have nowhere else to go they’ll come home in the end, as always happens. I’ve said many times that is still likely to happen again, with their no proof whatsoever that anyone can beat Obama right now.

Some voters, including Democratic activists, are just too abused to know better. So they’ll keep rewarding incompetence and ineptitude. They simply can’t help themselves, because they don’t have any stronger spine than the people they’re electing.

However, something new is afoot. There is a political shift happening that bodes ill for both main parties; something that is long overdue.

To quote JoeCHI, who speaks for a lot of people whose emails are hitting my inbox, and to which “mwfolsom” replied “Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Because Republicans are worse? Sorry, but that’s a terrible strategy. A terrible, pathetic, self-loathing, ineffective strategy. In fact, I would argue that the “Vote D because the R’s are so much worse.” is responsible for the mess the Dems are in today. After all, why should they put up a fight or fulfill their promises when you aren’t willing to walk away?

(FOLLOW UP COMMENT) My apologies, that came off a bit harsh. That said, the #1 rule of negotiations is that the only deal you have a chance of winning is the one that you’re willing to walk away from.

Right now Mitt Romney is finally resurfacing after staying quiet in Obama’s first year; while Sarah Palin continues her public tour. I didn’t create the landscape, but I will analyze it and report on it. I find it particularly interesting that when I write about Sarah Palin people get very upset that I can cover her without malice and offer a political analysis that is not filled with sexist slurs or the usual questions of competency. First, I cover what’s hitting, what’s interesting, and Sarah Palin is one of the most impressive political celebrity phenoms to hit American politics in decades. Secondly, as to her competency, George W. Bush was elected twice, so I think that proves the obvious, which is that most voters aren’t activists. They vote on emotion and Sarah Palin arouses it, on both sides, but she also fits the mood right now, though there is no evidence yet that she can clear the presidential nomination bar. However, considering how far she fell in 2008, and how she’s risen, nobody should count her out.

Meanwhile, Pres. Obama has spent the capital he road into office a year ago, now begging the progressives, whom he has betrayed on policy several times in his first year, to save his presidency. As the Democratic party decides whether to appease Rep. Bart Stupak against the majority of the party in order to pass a health care bill that’s not worth it, except to give Obama his desperate win. While establishment Dems advise the current health care bill needs to be passed or it dooms Democrats.

I’ve said numerous times that Dems have convinced themselves they need to pass something, if for no other reason than they can’t rise above Republican talking points. If Dems were smart they’d run on health care in 2010, asking the public to vote on a public option. That would turn the 2010 elections on its head and scare the crap out of Republicans.

The bottom line is that if the Democratic party is going to sell out the voters who put them in office, The People should burn down the party and start over with people who don’t, no matter how long that takes.

When Obama was elected people wondered if conservatism was dead. Ah, those were the days. They didn’t last long and it’s not the fault of the voters. But it will be if they continue to prop up these losers.

* – The spelling of “chazmonk” has been corrected.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

If Dems Appease Stupak, They Should Lose Their Jobs

By on 06 March 2010

–originally posted on Huffington Post–

The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate — and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform. “We would strongly urge everyone, Democratic and Republican, to vote to waive the point of order,” Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told POLITICO. “Whether it would be enough to get to 60 votes, I can’t predict. We would certainly try.” Bishops offer help with Senate

When the rise of Rep. Bart Stupak began, I wrote a post about Speaker Pelosi and 64 Democrats selling women out. Well, it seems that Pres. Obama and Congress are prepared to double down on that action by allowing Mr. Stupak to become the Democratic Henry Hyde on abortion at the expense of women who put them in office.

“Interference by the US Catholic bishops in healthcare reform does not help women,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “The bishops claim that this is an issue of ‘conscience.’ However, in seeking to impose their views, the bishops show no regard for the consciences of millions of women in the United States who want the ability to prevent unintended pregnancies or have an abortion when they need it.” – Abortion could be health care deal breaker in house

So, why is no one in the House taking Stupak on?

On Friday, Rep. Anthony Weiner finally did. It’s a lonely job.

From Rep. Steney Hoyer we got only capitulation.

Jane Hamsher has called for the resignation of Rep. Lynn Woolsey as head of the progressive caucus. Seems Ms. Woolsey is all too eager to sign on to the Senate health care bill, even though it’s a bad bill and still doesn’t contain the one thing the public wants, some form of public option; plus including language never before put in writing that makes it more difficult for women to get full reproductive health care.

Now, I’m not a movement progressive, just a political analyst who can figure out pretty clearly what’s going on. Women are being told again by Democrats to stand aside, be quiet, and take one for the team, because the health care bill is more important than our individual rights. Oh, and because the bill isn’t about abortion. If it’s not about abortion then why is the leading Democratic anti abortion legislator being coddled and kowtowed to over it to make sure the language passes his test?

What about how Democratic, progressive and liberal women feel about Rep. Stupak’s legislation and the Senate health care bill?

Considering the fact that we help get Democrats elected, our concerns should be taken very seriously. Because if you think the Democratic base is demoralized, you should read my emails from women who have had it with the current Democratic crop, who are yet again selling out the best interests of women, while taking our votes for granted.

Even as wrong as conservatives are about women’s rights, at least they represent and support the voters who get them elected.

The Democratic Party is not and neither is Pres. Obama in this health care bill.

That the Democrats are going to such lengths to simultaneously ignore that the American public support a public option, while selling women out, is like punching a bad bruise.

Women not only pay more for health insurance, but we get screwed by it more often. The Senate bill that Obama has embraced, with the House prepared to suck it up to “save his presidency,” women are going to have to follow convoluted rules never before put into place in order to get full reproductive health care.

Most people respect the right to life crowd’s stance, even if it is pro selective life, putting the woman second. But the fact of the matter is that Griswold and Roe are settled law, with the majority of Americans wanting it to stay that way.

Rep. Stupak’s efforts are exactly what Rep. Henry Hyde did when he couldn’t overturn existing law. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Stupak is wrong on the facts about the current bill, which does not fund abortion, which isn’t really why he’s ranting in the first place.

Which brings me to another subject Democrats do not want to address, which goes beyond the current health care debate. Why are Democrats still accepting that poor women shouldn’t have access to full reproductive health care through the Hyde Amendment? Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Reid and many others continue to pontificate that Hyde is the law of the land. Concocted in the 1970s as a response to Roe, Rep. Henry Hyde was an anti abortionist zealot. But it’s the 21st century now, so why aren’t Democrats demanding poor women have access to reproductive health services, including abortion, through federal funds? Ah yes, because poor women don’t vote and don’t have a lobby to speak for them. After all, Griswold and Roe are established law, so there is no reason except for Hyde to prevent poor women from having equal access to self-determination, including reproductive health care, birth control and abortion. Democrats are saying that money and means are a prerequisite for having 100% control over your body. Evidently, poor women will continue to pay the price for being poor. And to quote the conservative line, Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you lazy bitches!

Unfortunately, Pres. Obama and leading Democrats, including Rep. Lynn Woolsey, are also not only letting Mr. Stupak get away with his grandstanding, but aiding him by making him a conservative star over women. With Democratic women expected to shut up and take it when our rights are being chipped away.

The right already has succeeded in lessening the number of doctors who perform abortion, sometimes through murder, what’s next?

If the Democratic Party won’t fight for women’s full reproductive rights in health care reform why should we continue to support them?

Because Republicans are worse?

Pretty soon that won’t be good enough. Because if no one will stand up to Stupak there’s no point in women voting for Democrats.


TM NOTE: Wanted to share the following comment made over at Huffington Post where this article is cross-posted, a conservative responding:

just-a-mechanic: The author, obviously from the left, speaks of individual rights… I’m left speechless after reading this. As a Conservative I can not stand abortion for any reason and I proudly preach pro-life. Yet the champion of individual rights in me contradicts my stance. I’m left only with an adamant opposition against abortion and no legitimate way to argue my stance.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

‘Mad as Hell’ Oscar Weekend

By on 05 March 2010

It’s Oscar weekend and everyone could use some relaxation.

TCM has been doing great programming as this weekend approaches, with Robert Osborne doing a spectacular interview with Lauren Bacall last night.

Seriously, what would we do without the movies?

…especially with Obama and the Democrats flailing around like they lost the 2008 election and are in the minority!

For a laugh, it turns out Romney got beat by Sarah Palin in the late night ratings. Most around here are not surprised.

Consider this a topic free for all. Politics, but especially recipes for Oscar Sunday, are encouraged. The floor is yours.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Will Obama Cave to Cheney Crowd on KSM Trial?

By on 05 March 2010

“We are evaluating based on New York logistical and security concerns on trial in federal courts.” – Robert Gibbs to CNN (see video)

Damage done, no matter what’s decided. You simply don’t hang a question mark out there on something this emotional, especially when it’s contrary to declarations already made.

The video from CNN says it all. “Trial balloon?” Via the Washington Post:

President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The Obama White House couldn’t find a strong stance if someone wrote it out for them after poll testing it. Coupled with CNN’s report that the White House briefing has been canceled, this is incompetent juggling of spastic incoherence, coupled with mind numbing, paralyzing vacillation.

Andy McCarthy is all too happy to remind everyone of the reality of Pres. Obama’s Bush-esque stance on national security:

The Washington Post article that Dan posted about last night is a head fake. President Obama is not caving on military commissions. He has already caved on them: He failed (thankfully) to abolish them, Congress enacted legislation endorsing them again in 2009, and the administration has already directed a commission trial for the Cole bombers. The real agenda here is to close Gitmo. That’s the ball to keep your eye on. …

Wonder what people will say about Rahm Emanuel after this one? If the Washington Post turns out to be correct, point goes to Mr. Emanuel. His friendship with Sen. Lindsay Graham the conduit.

As an aside, this whole thing is Art of War 101 stuff, something that everyone should agree is Mr. Emanuel’s strong suit. It seems obvious he wants to pull Obama back into the sphere of independents by offering the military tribunal to prove Obama’s not a –wait for it– lefty. As if.

Surely people can see this appearance of vacillation is politically damaging, especially after all the word fogs delivered from candidate Obama on judicial fairness. But it seems the Obama White House is intent on remaking Democrats into weaklings on national security even after it was proven Republicans can’t keep us safe. See 9/11. The “trial balloon” clearly hinting that Obama’s national security team lost out to politics.

Pres. Obama and his advisers have fumbled the ball on Gitmo, as well as the entire handling of the KSM trial. First it was in New York, then it wasn’t; beginning with a civilian trial, now rumored to be off for a military tribunal. To note, Emanuel was reportedly against the New York trial, closing of Gitmo, etc. because of political appearances if nothing else. Points to Rahm, for those counting. Just maybe all the outside caterwauling about Rahm didn’t make a dent, because it was nonsense, or even worse, made him stronger, because he knows how to keep Republicans closers to the President, which is what Obama wants (see health care). A miscalculation by the caterwauling crew.

Regardless of the end game, today’s Friday dump day chaos makes George W. Bush look like a leader. Rahm deserves to take a hit for it, but he won’t, especially if the announcement is as the Washington Post teases. Because as election season nears, Obama will be all about appearances, not what he’s actually going to do.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Obama Asks Progressives to Save his Presidency

By on 05 March 2010

–updated–

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Poor Speaker Pelosi. Karma’s come back to bite her. Or actually it’s not Karma, it’s Bart.

But she shouldn’t feel bad, Pres. Obama’s got his own problems. He started solving them late yesterday by patting progressives on the head, while asking them to save his presidency by passing a bad health care bill.

No one is arguing that Democrats want to pass a health care bill. The Democrats just shouldn’t want to pass one that is as bad as the Senate bill, which Obama has embraced. From Greg Sargent we hear Pres. Obama told progressive members that the public option cannot pass. Great response from Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s Adam Green:

Obama is telling America, “No, we can’t.” But we’ve been showing more and more each day, “Yes, we can” pass the public option. If President Obama doesn’t think the votes exist in the Senate, he needs to name which senators would oppose it. If he can’t or won’t, there’s no reason for House progressives to be part of the White House’s loser mentality.

Again, the only part of health care reform people like is the public option. Additionally, the current Senate bill sets women back; even as we already pay more for health care than men, usually having to jump through hoops to get it; now shoving us into a stacked insurance system without choice, with convoluted rules on receiving full reproductive health care.

I’d like to see Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats offer only the public option, with nothing else, then see if Republicans go against it, with the public supporting it. We’d turn the 2010 elections on its head. As Obama said to progressives about the Senate bill, expecting them to believe him. We’re only at “the beginning of health care reform, not the end of it — and that we will fix it later, as we have with Social Security and Medicare…” Why couldn’t the same thing be said for the public option?

We all know the answer. Pres. Obama’s a likable guy. He’s just not a leader or a fighter, and we’re at a moment in history when we need both.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is finally facing a monster of her own making. On the way to getting the House bill passed, she aided and abetted Rep. Bart Stupak turning him into the Democratic version of Rep. Henry Hyde, the man who concocted the Hyde Amendment, but also led Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s. His cause was ending all abortions, but since Griswold and Roe he could only wield his religious obsessions in legislation. Mr. Stupak now carries Hyde’s torch, which is currently causing Speaker Pelosi a slow burn.

But never fear, Amy Sullivan has some advice for Speaker Pelosi, whom Ms. Sullivan judges is being too harsh on Mr. Stupak and company. Talk to them like idiots; say something like this:

“I understand that’s how some of my colleagues interpret the language of the Senate bill. I see it differently, but I do respect their concerns.”

Right, because after Mrs. Pelosi invited Catholic Church reps into the room the first time around to help craft the abortion language in the House bill, making Mr. Stupak a household name, the Democrats’ Henry Hyde needs to be coddled more.

If you’re a Democrat and haven’t figured it out yet it’s time you woke up to smell the hypocrisy. The party that expects women to support them every election is not only botching health care, but they’ve coddled and created an anti abortion zealot in their own party who’s crusading against a legal reproductive procedure that the courts have already settled, which the Democrats used to champion as part of women’s self-determination that the Democrats said they’d protect.

In case you weren’t keeping score, the Democrats have set women’s rights back during the health care debate by negotiating down when they’ve got all the power.

Segue to Katha Pollitt, who often goes a little far off the cliff for me, but on this point is dead on:

What one rarely sees is a reconfiguration of liberal premises to put women’s rights, interests, needs, and priorities at the center. Indeed, the rise of conservative Christianity has caused far too many liberals to dream that benign neglect of women’s rights (reproductive rights especially), gay rights, and church/state separation would make possible some grand economic-progressive alliance for a new New Deal. It is still a little shocking to me that Barack Obama invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration—Rick Warren, who not only opposes legal abortion and gay marriage, but also believes God commands wives to obey their husbands and forbids divorce to battered women. …

Democrats have the White House and the majority in Congress, and we helped put them there.

But our issues have no champions among Democrats anymore.

The title of this article has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

VoteVets ‘Clean Energy’ Ad Gift to Bomb Iran Crowd

By on 04 March 2010

–updated below–

Well, if you wanted to give Sarah Palin’s bomb, bomb, bomb Iran team a freebie, the new Vote Vets ad is it. However, it’s supposed to be about Congress getting us off oil and on to clean energy in order to keep us out of real life energy wars. Instead it serves up powerful visuals and a narrative that promotes going straight at Iran.

Transcript of the ad from Sam Stein:

“That’s the type of IED that earned me a purple heart in Iraq six years ago,” Miller says, as footage of a U.S. convoy being blown off a dirt road runs in the backdrop.

“This is what our troops are up against today: EFPs [Explosively Formed Projectile] specially designed to pierce American military armor. It is a devastating weapon and it was created in oil-rich Iran. They are ending up in the hands of our enemies. And every time oil goes up a dollar, Iran gets another $1.5 billion to use against us. Connection between oil and the enemy couldn’t be clearer,” Miller adds. “We need to break that connection by breaking our addiction. And we can by passing a clean energy climate plan. It would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half. Some in Congress say it is a tough vote. Not as tough as what our troops are up against.

The connection between foreign oil and war becomes the subtext underneath a much more powerful message, which screams the neoconservative line: Iran cannot be contained.

I’ve got a lot of respect for Vote Vets. But whoever made this ad just gave Liz Cheney’s group a gift.

UPDATE: To answer some emails on this subject, let me be even clearer. As I told Richard from Vote Vets in his response to my post in the comments, the ad is a cynical appeal using fear about Iran, specifically, through EFPs to get the job done. Vote Vets could have begun the ad the way you ended it, immediately making the oil – clean energy connection, but didn’t. You purposefully chose to focus on the fear card and the Iran boogieman, complete with a picture of Ahmadinejad, before making your clean energy pitch, because you thought that would get the attention. Emotion is powerful in all advertising and politics, as I point out often, so I appreciate Vote Vets trying to tap into it. But they got the emotional appeal exactly backwards, stressing Iranian dangers instead of energy dependence and they did it deliberately.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Out of the Mouth of Gregg, and Howard Dean

By on 04 March 2010

SaidTheSpiderToTheFly
I was wondering when someone was going to say it. Republican Senator Judd Gregg finally did. Via The Hill:

“They’re using reconciliation to pass the great big bill,” Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. “Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House didn’t care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?”

Seriously, why would the House trust the Senate?

“If you’re in the House and you’re saying, ‘Well, I’m going to vote for this because I’m going to get a reconcilation (sic) bill,’ I would think twice about that,” Gregg said. “First because, procedurally, it’s going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I’m not sure there’s going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people.”

“In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don’t need it,” he said.

Bait and switch, baby. It’s not like the unsuspecting and unprepared Democrats haven’t already seen plenty of that already.

“The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet,” Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show. – The Hill (–updated–)

The House progressives fell for Pelosi’s Stupak deal, which he’s still pushing in the face of taking health care down, because Mr. Stupak cares for cultural issues first, the sign of a true right-winger. If the House falls for the Senate’s trust me political purr on reconciliation it’s not like they weren’t warned.

Simultaneous passage of reconciliation and the Senate package is the only hope for the House, which Gregg is betting won’t happen.

But Gregg’s warning hiss to the House is a GOP talking point with punch, because it actually rings of truth while playing into the House’s historic distrust of the Senate. Slick play.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Is the Current Health Care Bill Worth It?

By on 04 March 2010

Now, most of these provisions that should appeal to Blue Dogs are a source of agitation for liberals. But liberals seem to have made the following calculation: In order to get a bill that covers 30 million Americans, with insurance reforms that protect consumers, they will swallow hard and accept several provisions that anger them. It’s called compromise—and, in some quarters, it’s also known as governing. Liberals shouldn’t be the only ones who bear the responsibility to govern. That falls to the whole Democratic Party—its right, left, and center. – A Blue Dog Dream

GoTeamMK

Democratic insiders, represented by Neera Tanden above, have decided that passing Pres. Obama’s Senate copied proposal is the definition of “the responsibility to govern.” Too bad this theory is running smack into the Founders’ intention that awful legislation should not pass easily.

The congressional Democratic majority needs to do some soul searching. Because if they vote to pass the current health care concoction they will not be rewarded. That’s because Pres. Obama and the Democratic Party have so botched the messaging on the health care reform effort that without the public option, which is the only thing the people support, voters will pull Washington down around Democrats who are foolish enough to believe the current health care bill is worth the onslaught.

Mr. Stupak should vote against the Democratic health care bill. He’s proven he’s not a very serious person through relegating his entire approach to health care via the abortion debate, also siding with Republicans in his efforts. Rep. Raúl Grijalva should vote against it too. In fact, so should Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Dennis Kucinich, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Weiner and all the rest of the Democrats who believe that health care reform is a serious issue that shouldn’t be sold out for the sake of a political win. Because don’t kid yourself, the current bill is a gift to for profit insurance companies, not the American people.

The Democrats and Pres. Obama have botched the entire effort. Those who helped sell out the cause of real health care reform should admit it. They might actually win some of the people back. Then Democrats should keep on working. The notion that this is the last chance for health care is preposterous. Everyone knows it has to be done. It’s just Obama’s racing to be the one who does it regardless that the proposal as it currently stands isn’t worthy of the year-plus efforts of his party.

Besides, the circus act of Rep. Bart Stupak, helped along by people like Chris Matthews, illustrates that disingenuous politicians like Mr. Stupak and others of his ilk really don’t care about health care reform. What they want to forward is their religious beliefs put into policy that Speaker Pelosi and other leaders have helped legitimize. Because making health care reform about abortion is what un-serious people do to advance their pet cultural gripes, which shouldn’t be condoned by anyone. That Speaker Pelosi and other progressives kowtowed to Stupak, Nelson and Casey on the abortion issue proves the inability for the Democrats to lead and their inability to keep their eye on the ball, which is people who are truly sick needing serious help.

The health care proposal Pres. Obama is now trying to get through Congress via reconciliation is simply not worth it for his party. The trouble is not passing some sort of health care package, no matter how bad, will be a humiliating defeat for Pres. Obama and his party.

Tough choice.

Getting their just deserts, Democrats find themselves in this position because they can’t keep their priorities straight, their goal in focus, partly because they don’t have a president who can tell the difference between good legislation and bad, with his goal simply a political “win,” which is described by the Democratic elite as “governing.”

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

What Do You Want To Talk About?

By on 03 March 2010

Consider this a free for all. You pick the topic.

One bit of news from Salon’s Mike Madden is that Rep. Raúl Grijalva may vote “no” on health care. It’s just not a given that Obama can get this through at this point. Again, it’s a bad bill. Is it better than nothing? Not for Obama, but for Dems in 2010, they’ll pay no matter what happens at this point.

What’s gotten my attention lately is V.P. Joe Biden’s higher profile on Middle East issues, including a big speech at Tel Aviv University coming up next week. Sen. John Kerry just got back from the region.

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday in Jerusalem that Biden is seeking to ensure that Israel and the United States are in alignment on the issue of preventing the Iranian nuclear threat. Kerry, who is privy to the details of efforts to impose sanctions on Iran, hinted Monday at a press conference in Jerusalem after a meeting with the prime minister that Biden’s visit to Israel, and that of other senior administration officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, aims at restraining Israel against the possibility of unilaterally attacking Iran.

This is how Haaretz framed the Administration in reporting Biden’s upcoming visit:

To date the U.S. administration has not made a serious effort to reach out to the Israeli public, unlike addresses by President Barack Obama aimed at the Arab and Muslim world. Obama will continue to convey his message, which began during speeches in Turkey and Egypt, with another during an official visit to Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country.

One interesting tidbit, via Laura Rosen at Politico:

Yesterday, Orthodox Union policy director Nathan Diament joined leaders of about a dozen American Jewish organizations to meet with Vice President Joe Biden and senior White House officials in advance of the Vice President’s trip to Israel next week. – IPA Blog

Rosen reports that Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren was also at the meeting.

The Jerusalem Post also reported the latest Biden moves.

Jewish leaders will meet with Vice President Joseph Biden before he tours the Middle East. The organizational leaders will meet Biden at the vice president’s residence Tuesday afternoon in a meeting that has not been flagged on Biden’s official schedule. Present at the meeting will be Dan Shapiro, who handles Israel and its neighbors for the National Security Council, and Dennis Ross, who handles Iran. Biden visits Israel next week.

Clearly, Pres. Obama and his foreign policy team are keeping a close eye on Iran and the swirling tensions in Israel over the subject of sanctions. All this diplomatic action towards Israel, however, gives rise that the notion that Iran can be kept from going nuclear is something that is unlikely. What happens next the concern.

What do you want to talk about? The floor is open.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

The Ineptitude of the Democratic Majority

By on 03 March 2010

“These Democrats are a bunch of wusses. They don’t have the courage of their convictions. They won’t stand and fight.” – Michael Moore, via Raw Story

From Michael Moore to Kathleen Parker, Democrats are getting the same review. The performance of the Democratic majority something that no partisan could defend. Led by Barack Obama, his party has come unglued to the point that not only have Democrats wasted an entire year, but they’ve managed to represent the worst of governmental incompetence while giving the government is bad crowd a serious boost. It’s hard to argue with Kathleen Parker on a couple of points she makes today:

… Meanwhile, incumbent Democrats are in trouble. If they pass health-care reform without Republican support, those from conservative districts likely won’t be returning to Washington next year. If they don’t pass health-care reform, they may be tossed out anyway. [...] … At the same time, more and more Americans are abandoning traditional political parties, with about 40 percent of the electorate identifying as independents. A perfect storm this way comes. …

Meanwhile, under the radar Liz Cheney and her group begin the swiftboating of the U.S. Justice Dept. and Eric Holder through nothing less than McCarthyism. The Ben Smith, Spencer Ackerman, and Glenn Greenwald have all covered it (also see pmichael’s In the News diary). The Republican party mainstream, represented by Liz Cheney, who carries on her father’s disappointingly despicable legacy, is now suggesting that due process and a fair trial should not be part of the American system of justice. Going further to say that lawyers who represent detainees are traitorous, “terror sympathizers.”

Rushing to their defense is retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the chief prosecutor of the Cheneys’ beloved military commissions, who told me the attacks are “outrageous.” … “It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don’t hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial.” [...] “If you zealously represent a client, there’s nothing shameful about that,” said the retired Air Force colonel. “That’s the American way.” – via Spencer Ackerman

Meanwhile, there is silence from the Democrats on this as well as a host of other issues. Because after over a full year of being in the majority they’re still bogged down on health care, as they argue with themselves, play defense, while allowing the Republicans to chip away at a policy prescription that everyone knows is desperately needed. Just today Democrats deciding that reconciliation is a go, something that should have been figured out way back in July 2009, because anyone with knowledge of the stakes for Republicans on health care would have known they never had any intention of helping Democrats get a win. It’s political malpractice that Democrats have just now figured this out, but did so by also voluntarily giving up the one part of health care to which the American people approve, the public option. The ineptitude boggles the mind.

Never before has the Democratic party been so thoroughly humiliated.

It would eave an opening for Republicans, but nobody wants them either, which is understandable.

Teeing it up for the Tea Party, because independents can’t seem to find a candidate to rally around.

The state of American politics is in shambles.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Sarah and Mitt Late Night

By on 03 March 2010

Sarah Palin was on Jay Leno tonight, taking a turn doing a comedy political monologue. The jokes weren’t great, but Palin kept the audience, because she was a good sport about it and seemed to be having fun. Casually dressed in jeans, black pumps and a fitted black jacket with a plunging, but tasteful neckline, Palin did herself some good, poking fun and laughing with Leno. Mrs. Palin also announcing she’ll be speaking at the NRA convention.

Mitt Romney was on Dave playing the role of wonk, though he didn’t let a good opportunity for a line pass him by. Romney was relaxed and on point promoting his book, talking about the economy, explaining why the Tea Partiers will help Republicans, while looking presidential in a blue suit. Different league than Palin, but he knows she’s got a formidable fan base, taking a moment to remind Dave, while also making sure he sent a nod of respect Palin’s way.

Asked about potential rival Sarah Palin, Romney called her “terrific” and added, “she’s got energy, passion.” He then urged Letterman to “be careful what you say about her by the way,” a reference to the feud between the two kicked off by Letterman’s comments about Palin’s daughter. Letterman grinned and nodded, saying, “I’ve had my…,” before trailing off as the audience began laughing.

Responded Romney: “She has a rifle, you know.”

Earlier yesterday, Romney sparred with Joy Behar, who made the comment that I’ve expected to hear from women, that Romney (and Scott Brown) were “both hunky.” File it under political anecdote, while remembering that factor didn’t hurt JFK at all (not saying Romney equal JFK, but you catch my drift).

Fun was had by all. It’s starting awfully early.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

The Clinton – Falkland Kerfuffle

By on 02 March 2010

hillary_state-1

Right-wing writer and Fox News contributor Nile Gardiner is going for the hyperbole gold on this one.

The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain.

Hillary Clinton’s dire performance in Buenos Aires was not only an appalling display of appeasement towards a corrupt and authoritarian anti-American regime, which barely has the support of 20 percent of the Argentinian people. It was also an astonishing betrayal of the United Kingdom by her closest ally, and yet another slap in the face for Britain from the Obama administration.

Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. …

All righty then.

What did Sect. Clinton say?

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.

QUESTION: (In Spanish) Interpreter: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue.

SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.

The “Malvinas issue” is the Falkland islands, specifically, the plans of the Brits to excavate and drill for oil in these islands. But using the term “Malvinas” is upsetting to Brits, though it’s how Argentinians refer to them, as they try to nudge involvement of the U.S., which is never going to happen and everyone knows it. Argentina also boasting they have the support of “33 foreign ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean,” according to reports, that side with Argentina over the British over the issue.

As for Chavez’s two cents? Here’s a sampling, to which Mr. Gardiner referred.

In recent days and during yesterday’s summit, most of the regional leaders backed Argentina’s claims. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez addressed Britain’s Queen Elizabeth directly on his weekly television programme, telling her to return the Malvinas to Argentina. He repeated his claims late Sunday when he arrived in Mexico for the summit.

“We support unconditionally the Argentine government and the Argentine people in their complaints,” Chávez told reporters at the airport.

“That sea and that land belongs to Argentina and to Latin America.”

He even pledged to send his armed forces to Argentina’s defence if Britain attacks, telling his allies they can “have the security of knowing they aren’t alone” against what he called British threats.

Expect the usual suspects to weigh in on this one.

The Falkland Islands and the current situation between Britain and Argentina is none of our business.

The right and other critics of Clinton are saying, by her weighing in that the Brits and Argentina should simply “sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue,” that Sect. Clinton has waded in where we don’t belong, her critics going so far as to say she’s taken sides. Perhaps because while in Argentina she said “Malivinas issue” instead of Falkland Islands.

Nuts! This is much ado about nothing. But that never stopped anyone before.

The nature of diplomacy is to make no waves, which in our current hyper-partisan media environment is impossible. Just take a look at the comments attached to Mr. Gardiner’s piece.

… Part of the reason that Clinton has gone to Latin America is to see President Lula of Brazil. The US is trying to get the UN security council to adopt new sanctions against Iran and Brazil, which is on the 15-member council, is reluctant to back sanctions. The British government rejected Clinton’s offer to mediate, and the US will accept that, more concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia than the islands of the South Atlantic. – Why Clinton won’t take Argentina’s side

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Operation Target Rahm Continues

By on 02 March 2010

The conventional wisdom that current “stenographic” efforts of the Washington Post are directed by Rahm Emanuel inspires my inner contrarian automatically, even as I remain a Rahm agnostic.

So in yet another week we get another Rahm tale in the Washington Post. But getting beyond the knee jerk hatred of everything Rahm, there is no reason to believe Mr. Obama wouldn’t lean towards listening to David Axelrod, who is the one who got him into the White House. People like Axe, Val, Gibby and Dave, all very loyal to what the President’s priorities were as a candidate also believing that staying true to his non-ideological roots is the way back to where Obama’s remarkable story began. Besides, as many have learned, team Obama doesn’t take criticism or suggestions from members outside the original choir, where Rahm began.

However, it is interesting that the quotes below from Graham on Emanuel come on the day after the new political “odd couple” story was written for Politico. Perhaps one reason Jim VandeHei said flatly today on “Morning Joe” that he “would bet a lot of money” that Emanuel wasn’t part of the Post story today; the other reason being VandeHei is a former Washington Post man who’s got plenty of his own sources and likely wouldn’t “bet a lot of money” on tape if he wasn’t pretty sure.

It’s impossible not to acknowledge that the closing Gitmo drama, which likely got Greg Crag axed, is illustrative of the larger Democratic divide.

In December 2008, Obama, Emanuel and Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) met in Obama’s transition headquarters in Chicago to discuss detainee policy. According to Graham, Obama turned to him at one point and said, “I’m going to need your help closing Guantanamo Bay. . . . I want you and Rahm to start talking.” They did, and as the discussions progressed, Emanuel grew wary that closing the U.S. military prison in Cuba was possible without opening a slew of other politically sensitive national security problems. “This stuff is like flypaper,” Graham recalled Emanuel saying. “It will stick to you.”

In an ironic twist, Emanuel’s dissent is likely what stuck.

When you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz quoted directly, versus some anonymous Washington lip flapping tale, it should make anyone interested in Obama succeeding, which regardless of disagreements we should all agree is critically important, take notice.

Listening to Emanuel would serve “all our overall goals,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). “I think that Rahm’s considerable legislative experience translates into advice that the president should heed.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is as smart as they get.

But if you think I’m being obstinate on the whole Rahm is leaking issue, believing instead that there is real frustration with Pres. Obama and his closest campaign team who aren’t listening to anyone, which is the foundation of these Rahm articles. After all, there’s no better target than Rahm Emanuel, everyone’s favorite scapegoat and the easiest person to get fired. Maybe another reason the knives are out.

Ezra Klein does me one better. He’s pro Rahm and believes the problem is really Scott Brown, because if it weren’t for Brown’s victory in Massachusetts Dems would have actually passed health care weeks ago.

If not for Scott Brown’s unexpected victory in Massachusetts, it would have passed weeks ago. We’d be on our way to implementing a bill that would cover 30 million Americans, completely reform the insurance market, make a serious start on cost control, end the days when sick people couldn’t get health insurance, and create a new coverage infrastructure that could absorb the flood of refugees from the dying employer-based system. That deserves some weight in this discussion.

Whether health-care reform passes, what’s undeniably clear is that it could have passed.

This is a truly stunning assertion that comes with absolutely no proof whatsoever, though the use of the word “could” would also take us back to last July when Democrats could have passed health care then, too, if Obama would have led on the issue. Klein believing Obama’s whole problem is health care. While it’s symbolic of overall Democratic incompetence, the issue is larger.

If you put together Wasserman Schultz and Lindsay Graham’s comments you get a very wide telephone cord that has Rahm holding up the middle, with Pres. Obama standing on the outside getting creamed from all sides. Considering the general discontent with Mr. Obama from Democrats at this point it’s not a far stretch to say that Rahm may be the manipulative, backstabbing, Blue Dog loving, “f—ing retarded” attack dog that everyone loves to hate, but the fact remains that Obama is flailing.

If you stand back from the Rahm hysteria, what you see is a White House that doesn’t know how to govern. Just today we get yet another deadline date on health care. This time it’s Easter bunnies and chocolate eggs as opposed to Christmas trees, turkeys at Thanksgiving, August recess, spring to summer turned to Teddy’s death.

Perhaps Mr. Emanuel will end up being the fall guy for Obama’s first year failures, but there’s no evidence that firing him alone will solve the Democrats’ problems.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Mitt Romney Takes on Tea Party ‘Populism’

By on 02 March 2010

romney_family_photo_3

Well, well, well, Mitt Romney’s book release begins with not only a book tour that takes him across the country, including Iowa and Florida, with his first two stops in the Sunshine State in West Palm Beach, then Naples, totaling six trips, according to his itinerary. But Mr. Romney drives straight into the grass root Tea Partiers. Romney is also making no apologies for America, wink, wink, you know, like Pres. Obama has done.

The book’s defiant title refers to Obama’s “steady stream of criticisms, put-downs, and jabs directed at the nation he was elected to represent and defend,’’ as Romney puts it. “Obama’s words are like kindling,’’ he writes, to “anti-American fires burning all across the globe.’’ – Boston Globe

Romney stands up for that poor, abused and much maligned class that is so popular to smack around right now. From the Boston Globe review of “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” It’s not “morning in America,” though Romney on a horse (via his “Free and Strong America” PAC site) is close.

“The populism I’m referring to is, if you will, demonizing certain members of society: going after businesspeople, going after Wall Street, going after people who are highly educated, people who are CEOs,’’ Romney said in an interview. “That kind of ‘All of our problems are due to that group’ is something that is unproductive.’’

It’s the same class that could get Mort Zuckerman as a senate candidate, now that Harold Ford, Jr. has figured out the moneyed class has gone Zuck’s way. But let’s face it, Romney’s value in the economic downturn we now face is his CEO experience at creating jobs, so he can’t very well run like Sarah Palin might if she decides to get into the race. Also figuring that if there’s a Tea Party representative in the primaries, Palin has that territory sewn up.

Romney also takes a page from Virginian victor Bob McDonnell, leaving cultural issues at the door and to Mike Huckabee. Mr. Romney realizing that the 2012 election and the mood of the American public is against the partisan tide, with people looking for solutions, especially since they don’t feel the current Smart Set in Washington has provided any. He also intends to capitalize on independent rage against the disappointment that Barack Obama hasn’t come close to delivering on his promises.

But Mitt isn’t about to get caught in the just say no Republican wheel house on health care. As smart as they come on the right, Mr. Romney knows that businesses are desperately seeking health care solutions, something Romney crafted in Massachusetts as governor.

Even though he is critical of the Democrats’ health care plan, he says his experience adjusting the Massachusetts system has led him to share their goal of universal coverage and the belief that only government can expand the number of Americans who are insured. “I’m not at all surprised to think that I have differing views on some topics than my fellow Republicans,’’ he said. “Sometimes it takes government to get government out. Government has legitimate roles in our society: set the rules, but then get out of the way and let the market work.’’

Nina Easton of the Wall Street Journal, whose husband worked for his campaign, helped Romney with the book, though in an email response Easton said she wasn’t paid and did it as a friend.

Mitt is establishing his moderate credentials as he and his team cast their eyes towards independents, Romney betting that the Tea Party crew and angry populism against business will burn itself out, along with Sarah Palin’s popularity once people start seriously evaluating who can beat Barack Obama in 2012

According to reviews of Romney’s book he also doesn’t try to spin a tale of personal epiphanies and family stories, pressed into a campaign pitch.

As I’ve been saying for many years, Romney is the one to watch and the person I’d bet the White House is already gaming against. His direct challenge to the Tea Party crew and the “temptations of populism,’’ however, does make this a bit more interesting than if Mr. Romney had come out to embrace some parts of the Tea Party movement like Pelosi and a few Democrats have done so as not to alienate them. It really could set Sarah Palin up in a way not imagined before, though the odds are that in serious times someone who has actually created jobs and understands business is still the likely bet.

Mitt Romney clearly knows this is his last shot at the presidency, with the issues primed for him after a disastrous first try that got his flip flopping issues past behind him, as well as his religious challenges over evangelical bigotry against Mormonism. The game plan is more studied than simply political calculation about what’s popular. Democrats better take his challenge seriously, because he won’t be the same candidate this time.

The Romney 2012 overture has begun.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Bunning: ‘Excuse me! This is a Senators only elevator!’

By on 01 March 2010

If you want to understand how comfortable Republicans are feeling about their position right now, just take a look at Sen. Jim Bunning, or Jon Kyl, the Senate spectacle currently playing in an open-ended performance. Via Ryan Grimm:

Scanned Image-482_3

“I’m sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can’t argue that it’s a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it’s a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here.” – Jon Kyl

Only someone who has never been unemployed or struggled to find work could say something so stupid.

ABC News reporting on Bunning’s latest tantrum.

“Excuse me! This is a Senators only elevator!” Bunning thundered. I tried again to ask his reasons for blocking the bill, Bunning said he already explained his reasons last Thursday, when he said he wanted the $10 billion cost of the bill to be paid for, rather than simply adding to the national debt. “Excuse me!” he yelled. “I’ve got to go to the floor!”

The thing is, Republicans aren’t feeling compelled to deliver anything right now. With the Tea Party breathing down their necks, helped along by Rush Limbaugh and the cut government crowd, doing nothing is exactly what their side wants. They simply don’t care about the people suffering in the current economy. That’s how bad things have gotten.

McClatchy has more:

However, nearly 1.2 million unemployed workers, including 14,000 in Kentucky, would lose federal jobless benefits this month if Congress doesn’t extend them, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal-leaning research group. The U.S. Labor Department estimates that about a third will lose benefits in the first two weeks of the month. Letting the highway program lapse could mean an estimated 90,000 jobs lost. As many as 2 million families could lose access to local television because a copyright law expired overnight.

Our government inaction.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Tipping Point: Obama Approval Goes Negative

By on 01 March 2010

“He’s going to be a one term president,” the Costco book browser said to his friend. That’s what I overheard yesterday, as two thirtysomething guys perused the political books. There’s no evidence it’s that dire right now. Obama’s got a lot of time to turn it around. But polling continues to head negative for the President.

This is what Democrats are feeling as they ponder reconciliation on health care. As Harry Reid found out when Obama came to Nevada, the President isn’t exactly helping Democrats right now. From Public Policy Polling:

Barack Obama now has a negative approval rating in every state he flipped from the Bush column to his in 2008.

State by state, just imagine what Democrats in Congress are feeling. Below are the approval/disapproval ratings from PPP:

-In Colorado a recent Rasmussen poll found his approval at 45/53. Research 2000 found his favorability at 46/47 in January.

-In Florida Rasmussen found his approval at 45/54 and Quinnipiac’s latest found it at 45/49.

-In Indiana Rasmussen has his approval at 44/54 and Research 2000 finds his favorability at 46/49.

-In Iowa Rasmussen has him at 45/54, and the latest Des Moines Register poll put his approval at 46%, though I can’t find the disapproval number anywhere.

-In Nevada Rasmussen finds his approval at 46/54. We found 44/52 in in January.

-In New Mexico we found his approval last week at 45/48.

-In North Carolina our last poll put him at 45/51.

-In Ohio Quinnipiac’s last poll put him at 44/52.

-In Virginia Rasmussen’s latest has him a 48/51. SurveyUSA last had him at 44/54, and we put him at 42/52.

Pres. Obama remains a likable personality, but it has not translated to the voters in he understands my plight and can solve my problems. Luckily for Obama, after the midterms he gets a new push. Except that it’s about that time Republicans will come calling for 2012. However, the midterms worked to reset things for WJC, who went on to easily win in 1996. However, as I’ve said before, the dynamics are not the same at all and the Republicans won’t feel about their 2012 candidate, whoever he (or she) is, the way they felt about Bob Dole.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Beinert’s Beltway Ramblings

By on 01 March 2010

rangel_BrigetteStelzer-SplashNews_Beinert-DailyBeast

First Rahm, now Rangel. Who’ll be the next scapegoat for Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s ineptitude?

As political pictures go, this one is bad, really bad. It could make matter worse for Rep. Charlie Rangel, who has been caught doing some really dumb things. However, for Peter Beinert, it’s the picture that will sack the Democratic majority in November. There have been dumber claims by the insider Beltway crew, but not lately. Peter Beinert’s Daily Beast post today begins “The photo that could doom the Democrats,” with the following irony explaining the problems in a list.

To understand why the Rangel scandals are so dangerous for Democrats, you need to understand something about midterm landslides: They’re usually composed of three parts. First, the other party’s activists are highly motivated. Second, your own activists are highly unmotivated. Third, independents want to burn Washington to the ground.

There’s nothing Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi can do about the first problem. The stimulus, the bank bailouts, the auto-takeover and the health-care push have convinced large numbers of aging white people that Obama is Mao Zedong, and they’re not going to change their mind anytime soon. The best response to the second problem is to pass health-care reform and give Keith Olbermann something to get excited about. But perhaps most crucial of all is responding to problem No. 3.

Peter, babe, wake up and smell the roaring bonfire. Independents don’t need a Rangel scandal to light a blaze already out of control. The GOP isn’t highly motivated because of Charlie Rangel; neither are the Tea Partiers. As for the Dem activists, from my emails, comments and conversations, I’d say they’re pissed off because of Obama and Congress, not simply because Rangel has been revealed to be a little dirty. You know, like a lot of white guys with long term committee power in Congress.

Evidently Mr. Obama’s horrendous lack of leadership isn’t enough to bring the Dems down in November, at least not for Mr. Beinert. Nor is the President’s Wall Street bailouts, cozy relationships with for profit health insurance companies, or his year long malaise on getting anything done when his party holds both houses of Congress.

Perhaps Peter could take a moment to look at the George W. Bush did with less.

Now happily ensconced inside the Beltway myself, yet a permanent outsider, it’s even easier to pick out and pummel the idiotic analysis that passes for intelligent around here, including in favorite think tanks, with the New America Foundation, a group I so respect, pushing Beinert’s post today via email. I wonder if they read it. The more “senior fellows” I read in whatever think tank you list, most of whom are male, the less impressed I am with the Beltway “fellows” program. But I get why they call the program fellows.

Beinert also notes that a “Democratic source” says “party pollsters” are picking up “rumblings” that the Rangel scandal is starting to –wait for it– “register with the public.” Get the smelling salts! People have another congressional failure to add to the list.

It’s truly stunning how bad Peter Beinert’s political analysis is on this one. But he’s got lots of company. Blaming President Rahm, now Charlie Rangel, there is very little honesty going around in Washington about who to blame for what everyone is prognosticating will be an epic loss in November. As I can’t tell the future, I have no idea how bad it will be, but it’s for sure that considering what Democrats began with last year when Obama came into Washington, they not only haven’t acted like winners, but they’ve ruined their credibility on proving they understand and know how to govern.

But if Beinert had chosen to be more honest, using the Rangel photo as metaphor to damn the entire Democratic party leadership, on that he would have been dead on. Just set it in Hawaii instead.

Photo above by Brigitte Stelzer/Splash News, via the Daily Beast.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }