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 | May, 2010

Joe Sestak: ‘A Win for the People Over the Establishment, Over the Status Quo, even over Washington, DC’

By on 18 May 2010

Meanwhile, AR Lt. Gov. Bill Halter forces Sen. Blanche Lincoln into runoff, according to CNN.

Not sure even Bill Clinton can save her. It’s a cinch Pres. Obama cannot.

As for the DSCC and the Democratic Party elites, they backed the guy. Never bet against a military man.

Though the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee strongly backed Specter in the Pennsylvania primary fight, the DSCC quickly released a statement responding warmly to Sestak’s victory. “Joe Sestak has a compelling life story and a powerful message of change. He knows what is wrong with Washington and, if elected to the Senate, will shake up how business is done in the Capitol,” DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said.

I would love to have heard Sect. Hillary Clinton’s call to Joe Sestak. Die hard Clintonites will remember that Sestak worked very hard for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Election Night 2010, Take One

By on 18 May 2010

BREAKING NEWS… AP CALLS IT FOR JOE SESTAK.

Lawrence O’Donnell re Sestak win, “White House political operation is reeling from this result and they should be.” Shorter: they suck. Also, Big Labor gets stiffed on this race, too.

UPDATE: Critz brings it in for Dems, so Bill Clinton did what he needed to do on this one. NBC’s Chuck Todd agrees.

UPDATE (10:07 pm): Neil Oxman, take a bow. Keith Olbermann reports that Andrew Mitchell heard from two Specter aides that he can’t overcome Sestak lead looking at Allegheny county.

CNN calls it for Jack Conway.

UPDATE (7:52 pm): Rand Paul the projected winner in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell takes a big hit on this one.

~~~~~

Amidst real fears that November could be trouble for Democrats, but also portend bad things for Pres. Obama’s agenda, the Democrats do what they should have done from day one. Speed up health care benefits to people, or at least market the pluses so people know who gave them the goodies.

Top administration officials, who meet regularly with outside special interest groups to coordinate the public relations effort, have so far focused on expediting and amplifying four key areas of the new law: expanding coverage to young adults, covering sick people with pre-existing conditions or high medical costs, providing tax breaks to small businesses and helping a select group of seniors pay for prescription drugs. [..]

In every case, the administration’s objective is unmistakable: Make sure as many Americans as possible know as quickly as possible about the health care changes they will find most attractive. …

[...] There are two big reasons Democrats feel the need to step it up. First, polls that show the public still isn’t backing the legislation. Most show mixed feelings at best and often hostile attitudes toward the law. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 44 percent think the health plan is a bad idea; 38 percent think it is a good idea. Second, the heavy spending in anti-reform advertising: In the past month, anti-health-reform groups have poured $3.8 million into television advertising, nearly doubling the $2 million that has come from pro-reform forces, according to Evan Tracey, founder of TNS Media Intelligence. – Politico

But tonight, all eyes are on Pennsylvania, where Pres. Obama could take a one, two punch. It all depends on the outcome of the Specter-Sestak showdown, as well as the race for John Murtha’s seat. McCain took the district in 2008, meaning an appearance from Pres. Obama wouldn’t do it.

So, Bill Clinton has been campaigning for and with Mark Critz. He did a robocall Critz urging Pennsylvania voters to keep Jack Murtha’s seat in Democratic hands.

It’s another example of Democrats trying very hard to keep red districts blue and doing so by supporting candidates who are against women’s individual rights. Critz also says he would have voted against the health care bill.

Christina Bellantoni of TPM was told by “a Democrat close to the White House” that “If the bottom were really falling out the GOP should be walking away with this race.” Former Rep. Tom Davis went even further:

“They should win this election today. … .. If the Republicans don’t win this I think they have to look mechanically at what they’re doing.” – former Rep. Tom Davis

TPM is billing this as a “bellweather” for November: Bellwether Seat? Dems Confident A Win In PA-12 Tonight Would Bode Well For Nov.

Again I question the value of selling women’s rights out for the sake of a right-wing district that doesn’t acknowledge our fundamental freedoms. Democrats supporting these candidates are making it easier for Congress to move rightward on women’s issues, which is the wrong way to go. Women’s rights has been a foundational part of the Democratic Party, but it seems as the 21st century dawns they’re making more and more compromises in order to win over conservatives.

As for health care, needless to say Critz voting no would have been a real issue for Pres. Obama.

A 50-state strategy is important for the presidency, but what good does it do Democrats if they work for congressional members that move the party to the right, while sacrificing core principles in the process?

No one seems to be saying anything, because Republicans would be worse.

So, where are the women in leadership positions on this? They are silent, thus sending a message that Democrats can get away with it. You know, because they are.

However, if Democrats win, putting Mark Critz in the House, the person who helped pull it off is Bill Clinton, a man still beloved in Pennsylvania. Of course, Blanche Lincoln also had WJC’s help, but she may find herself headed towards a run off. Oregon is getting lost in the Penn excitement, while everyone is expecting a Rand Paul win. And if Specter pulls it out, the White House can breathe a bit easier, though going into today it was Sestak gaining, but with turnout and voter enthusiasm low it’s now a jump ball.

Throwing a damper over the whole day was the Connecticut bombshell about Blumenthal. If you want to know the media’s mood on it all you had to do was listen to Chris Matthews today, which I don’t do very often anymore. Matthews threw the guy under the bus then backed up. Simmons, the actual Vietnam veteran, will be a guest on his show tomorrow. The Republican machine has already moved into action, with vets on the right demanding an apology from Blumenthal. Via Ben Smith:

I am unsatisfied with Attorney General Blumenthal’s comments. While I’m not surprised that he ‘regrets’ that his misstatements have been called to the public’s attention, what he owes is an apology to the veterans, who served and sacrificed in Vietnam.

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth can’t be far behind. This Senate seat is now in play, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, something Democrats sure didn’t need.

As for election results, now we wait.

 
Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Blanche Lincoln Headline of the Day

By on 18 May 2010

CNN’s Dana Bash broke the story via Twitter.

More via TPM, who also has the campaign’s statement on the Blanche’s embarrassing moment.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln suffered what might be one of the all-time greatest campaign staff fails this morning. According to her campaign staff, Lincoln was initially turned away when she tried to vote at her home her polling place this morning after elections officials discovered she had already requested an absentee ballot be sent to her Virginia home. Poll workers told Lincoln their records showed she had already voted. [...]

Meanwhile, abysmal turn out in Pennsylvania.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Blumenthal: ‘I will not allow anyone to take a few of those misplaced words and impugn my record of service.’

By on 18 May 2010

Republicans see an opening for the first time.

Twitter erupted the moment the presser began.

Surrounded my veterans, including Marines, a Marine Corps League member started the press conference off with an emotional defense of Richard Blumenthal, which was followed by the chairman of Connecticut’s Vietnam Veteran Memorial.

Then Blumenthal spoke. He was defiant in defense of his service, but also took responsibility for “misspeaking.” He said saying “‘in’ instead of ‘during’ was unintentional.” However, he also said “I am responsible for my own statements… journalists make mistakes,” referring to articles that printed, including Slate.com, he had served in Vietnam. But he also stated that the New York Times denegrated his service in the Marine Reserves.

There’s no doubt that this press conference was moving, especially when the veterans’ groups representatives spoke. Mo Elleithee reportedly was handling the presser and the one to say “last question.”

If I’m a Republican I’m jumping all over this one. Local press will be, too, especially with regard to his five deferments to see if there’s another thread to pull.

Blumenthal was also asked about Linda McMahon’s involvement in this story but refused to comment; then kept talking, saying the press could draw their own conclusions by what her campaign did.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Obama Administration Reacts to Iran ‘Fuel Swap’ Deal

By on 18 May 2010

“Of course they are not thrilled,” Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Pentagon official, said of the administration. “They thought [the Brazilian-Turkish diplomatic effort with Tehran] was going to fail and didn’t stop it, or couldn’t stop it. It looks like it undercut their diplomacy. – President Obama’s nuclear headache

They had to act, so they did.

“Today, I am pleased to announce to this committee we have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. “We plan to circulate that draft resolution to the entire Security Council today.” … “I think this announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” Clinton said. – The New York Times

China welcomed Iran’s “fuel swap” deal with Turkey, which brought the issue of sanctions against Iran into question by some. They went even further in a statement: “I think this will slow down talk of sanctions,” said a former Chinese diplomat to Iran.

China and Iran got the answer today, though now Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent members of the Security Council, will undoubtedly vote against sanctions. Nine members are needed to pass the sanction agreement, which shouldn’t be hard to get.

Whether sanctions will have the intended outcome is another story entirely.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Linda McMahon Goes Hunting, Gets Blumenthal’s Scalp

By on 18 May 2010

–updated– (also see video of press conference)

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so. “I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.” – Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History

Never underestimate what a female will do to win. The last time we saw a wrestler take down like this one was when Jesse Ventura became governor.

The piece, fed to the paper by the Linda McMahon Seante campaign, is accompanied by a chilling 2008 video of Blumenthal blithely making the false claim. – McMahon Strikes. Turns Blumenthal into Bruce Caputo.

If you don’t know the name Bruce Caputo you’re not alone. But if you know anything about Tim Russert’s dig deep political style that he took to “Meet the Press,” but also into his presidential debate moderation, it won’t surprise you.

Whether Linda McMahon is at the heart of the New York Times story or not, you can bet the opposition research engine that is against Mr. Blumenthal shared what they had with her team (at the very least). As someone who’s been involved on oppo campaign hit teams before, I also wouldn’t be shocked if McMahon’s people had their hands on this one, but as is often customary, the candidate is kept out of it directly.

It’s a righteous political blow that hits directly at Blumenthal. Lies are fair game.

“Since the days I served in Vietnam” are the words that are currently ringing forth, even as the DSCC does their best at damage control.

Linda McMahon didn’t miss a beat, widely circulating the article from the New York Times.

Rob Simmons, who actually did serve in Vietnam, released this statement:

“As someone who served, I respect Richard Blumenthal for wearing the uniform, but I am deeply troubled by allegations that he has misrepresented his service,” Simmons said. “Too many have sacrificed too much to have their valor stolen in this way. I hope Mr. Blumenthal steps forward and forthrightly addresses the questions that have arisen about this matter.”

To add, Ben Smith posts a classic cannibal moment, with Simmons now attacking McMahon on the issue.

Richard Blumenthal is scheduled to give a press conference, and according to Sam Stein on “Morning Joe,” he will have members of veterans groups behind him. Unfortunately, Blumenthal’s team already came out swinging at the New York Times reporting, saying it’s an exaggeration, according to a statement read on MJ today.

Wrong move. They need the Jack Ryan approach. “Give them no place to go, nothing to report, no story.” This is obviously what was done in the video of Blumenthal shown here, but there are too many other instances and opportunities where he lied by omission.

Ambition is a treacherous wave to ride. It will take you down if you don’t control it.

If Blumenthal survives, one thing is certain, it’s quite likely the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth will be back for a command performance in Connecticut.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Saddle Up for ‘Super Senate Tuesday’

By on 17 May 2010

Stuart Rothenberg, who analyzes congressional races for his nonpartisan Political Report, said many conservative and liberal activists had one thing in common: unhappiness with the president and Democrats running Congress. One side feels they have gone too far, the other not far enough. The upshot, Rothenberg said: “Both think they need to elect people who are going to be louder, more ideologically motivated and more confrontational.” – Tuesday primaries may be first expressions of voters’ wrath

Well, hell’s bells and lock ‘em ‘n load’ em, John Wayne rides again. At least he does in Alabama. What a hoot.

Let the 2010 election games begin.

Politico started the day with assessing “whose clout is at stake.” They mentioned Big Labor, Ed Rendell, Mitch McConnell, Mike Huckabee, and even Bill Clinton. Evidently Barack Obama has no part in tomorrow’s “super Senate Tuesday.” Now that’s teflon, at least as build, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

And talk about a mixed bag. It starts with an Associated Press-GfK poll (via Mark Murray) released Saturday that reveals voters want Dems to control Congress. One hitch is they just don’t want the current crop to be in charge. Hard to disagree with that one.

Will Joe Sestak have enough GOTV power to beat the Obama anointed candidate, Arlen Specter? Know the White House is already having indigestion over this one. In fact, Greg Sargent’s headline has Obama “bracing” for a loss, if you ignore the obligatory question mark.

Is Blanche Lincoln headed towards a run-off?

Will another Bill Clinton candidate, Mark Critz, who is vying for John Murtha’s seat, and is yet another Democrats against women’s rights keep it Blue Dog blue for the Dems?

Will Rand Paul stick it to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell? This one seems pretty sure, a Paul win putting the Tea Party in prominence in a way that not only embarrasses the Republican elite, but creates a powerful megaphone.

The RSCC is ready with their talking points:

“The point Jesmer is making though is that for all of the hype given to OFA and the idea that Obama was a transformative figure who’s own political success would translate into success for other Democrats has not proven to be true.” – MSNBC’s First Read

Not that Charlie Crist and Bob Bennett exactly made Republicans look stellar, which really isn’t possible at this point.

It’s going to be quite a mini-super Tuesday tomorrow.

Looking beyond, Dick Cheney endorses Meg Whitman, with the California primary June 8, 2010.

Ruh-roh, McCain’s got troubles reminiscent of 2008. If he goes down, he’ll do it ugly.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Peter Beinert: Liberals Now Check Zionism at the Door

By on 17 May 2010

Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes. – Peter Beinert

Forgive me, but when this gentile reads a well intended essay on the American Jewish establishment that begins with praising Frank Luntz, I immediately reach for the gag bag. That Luntz, or for that matter Peter Beinert, has any surprise at how young people view Israel today truly smacks of political denial. It’s like wondering why young people have no prejudice about their school friends who are Arab or Muslim, while their conservative parents freak out when their kid has a party. (Look what an Arab-American Miss USA unleashed.) But if I stopped here it wouldn’t be giving Peter Beinert his due.

However, that Mr. Beinert can go the entire essay without invoking Christian evangelical power inside the Israeli political dilemma is staggering. Maybe it’s a purposeful blind spot, because the issue to which Mr. Beinert refers he feels is none of their business? Oh, if only the Christian right could be cut out of this story so easily.

But wait! Something good has arisen here, because Beinert renders the most sober assessment I’ve seen of the real catastrophe that we are amidst, taking on the powers of persuasion that so deserve exposure by American Jews on a serious level.

Lieberman’s American defenders often note that in theory he supports a Palestinian state. What they usually fail to mention is that for him, a two-state solution means redrawing Israel’s border so that a large chunk of Israeli Arabs find themselves exiled to another country, without their consent.

Even Luntz does his part, when in a separate poll taken in Israel, he reveals a shift in Israel that evokes yesterday’s denial of entry of Noam Chomsky.

This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry official called the survey “a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth.”

So what the across the pond gulf between American Jews and Israelis, not to mention the next generation on both sides, reveals goes beyond any process battle for peace we’ve yet encountered that’s been drawn and laid out.

It’s also why people like Aaron David Miller have lost faith in peace.

From Peter Beinert’s article:

Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster–indeed, have actively opposed–a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.

But it’s when Mr. Beinert expresses the deep feelings about “a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it still could be” that my heart fully breaks.

With Orthodox Jews and Israeli settlers dead set on any compromise, and with the Lebanon war of 2006, not to mention the recent carnage in Gaza, as well as the aftermath of the Golstone report fresh in our minds, the solidifying of Israel’s bully military state is complete and leaves gentiles like me who longed for Israel to rise in status through its democratic morality instead of defensive (and offensive) weaponry bereft of the hope to which Beinert refers.

What Beinert’s article tells me is that peace and a two-state solution may finally be beyond America’s power to influence.

What Beinert doesn’t address, as his piece is focused on tribal challenges, is that if this is true it’s a very bad development for Israel.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Sarah Palin is Not a Feminist

By on 17 May 2010

cross-posted and featured at Huffington Post

You don’t need to be a feminist to assemble a pack of conservative “mama grizzlies” for 2012; besides, as a conservative, it’s unnecessary. They simply do not support women’s individual freedoms, which is the bottom line in any feminist creed. So why Sarah Palin has chosen to contort her message saying she’s working on a “new conservative feminist movement” is more a lesson in gymnastic messaging than truth. She should stick with “mama grizzlies,” which is on point to who she is, because Sarah Palin is not a feminist.

As Chris Cilizza notes today, Sarah Palin is betting on several fierce candidates, all of them female: Carly Fiorina, who is running for the Republican Senate nomination in California; Rep. Nikki Haley, a candidate for governor in South Carolina; and Susana Martinez, the Dona Ana County district attorney seeking the GOP nod in the New Mexico governor’s race.

When you compare Sarah Palin’s actions to those of Democratic Party lately, sadly, what you see is something much more supportive of women coming from the right than the left. As I’ve been writing for months, we have no female equivalent to Sarah Palin on the left; someone who will stand beside women against the misogynistic Democratic establishment that refuses to stand up for women’s rights. It’s helping to tilt the Democratic Party, while aiding Republicans in moving this country rightward.

As Tony Lee proves rather convincingly in The Atlantic, it hardly matters whether Sarah Palin is a feminist, or as she deems it “frontier feminist,” because she’s got plenty of attributes to woo conservatives without that mantle. I understand that the left disagrees with me on this one, but no one has convinced me otherwise, whether she runs in 2012 or not. So, it’s an overwrought, bend over backwards exercise for Palin to even try to resurrect the feminist moniker with a conservative twist that not only won’t work but isn’t required, especially since it might awaken a dead women’s movement that won’t serve Sarah in the process.

Palin spoke at the Susan B. Anthony List breakfast on Friday, ranting on and on, invoking “mama grizzlies,” while using anti women’s rights language, evidently not at all concerned that her usual rhetoric extolling the values and importance of freedoms doesn’t extend to women. Don’t get me wrong, I respect the rights of Sarah Palin and conservative women to make decisions that fit their lives and philosophy. Unfortunately, they do not respect mine or the millions of other women who stand up for women’s individual freedoms and the right to self-determination that equals any man.

You simply can’t be a feminist if you don’t support a woman’s individual rights. Announcing a “new conservative feminist movement” without acknowledging the individual freedoms of women won’t cut it. This feministic facade that actually takes aim at women’s rights should be seen for what it is.

Anything less than supporting women’s full individual rights simply renders you a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud.

See Emily’s List president Stephanie Schriock’s response to Mrs. Palin. Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, remained silent, though her ineptitude has already been proven. As for NARAL and NOW, they’re completely ineffectual, so nothing is expected.

Segue to Gallup’s latest poll proclaiming “The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More “Pro-Life”. Though it tries to bolster the Sarah Palin wing of the anti women’s right lobby, Gallup needs to take a step into the 21st century, maybe taking a page from NPR’s neutrality language when talking about reproductive rights. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been if Gallup had chosen abortion rights supporter (or advocate) and abortion rights opponent (or advocate). However, they have to support the status quo, which comes from another era. Until they change the language we should all take this organization for what it is: an organization that pushes an agenda that marginalizes women’s freedoms in order to get a specific outcome, which benefits the right in this country, regardless of party.

No one should be able to take a woman’s freedom away from her, which is what Sarah Palin and her feministic followers want to do. Anyone who tries to strip women of our individual freedoms is not for women’s rights, but also against women’s freedoms, and they most certainly aren’t a feminist in any real, true or important manifestation of the word.

Freedom is not just for men.

Human rights are women’s rights, which include individual freedom, which no one has the right to abridge.

However, Sarah Palin’s anti abortion rights rhetoric in no way diminishes her “unapologetic feistiness,” as Lee better describes her, or her ability to amass conservative “mama grizzlies.” Just don’t put Palin in the feminist column, because women can’t be truly free unless they are fully free, just like men.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Right Wing Up In Arms Over Arab-American Miss USA

By on 17 May 2010

Looks like the Miss USA pageant didn’t want to risk the wrath of the open-borders mob. – Michelle Malkin

She stumbled on her evening gown… then recovered. Grace under pressure can make the difference. So can putting your foot in it. Yes, my fellow Americans, a controversial question in a big beauty pageant can cause a contestant trouble, especially when your answer is televised.

It’s amazing how many people are opining on the Miss USA pageant without knowing a thing about big beauty pageants. Of course, the usual suspects, leading off with Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel, the leading wingnut conspiracy clapper, are both expounding on the issue, particularly upset that the stunningly beautiful Lebanese immigrant Rima Fakih was crowned Miss USA instead of Oklahoma’s Morgan Elizabeth Woolard, who made the colossal mistake of getting overtly political in an interview session. Ms. Schlussel, who threatened me with a lawsuit in 2007 (pretty hilarious Democratic Underground recap), is going full out on Ms. Fakih’s relatives, as well as who funded her appearance in the pageant, because Schlussel is anti-Arab on all fronts. Malkin goes after Fakih’s ridiculous interview answers, though it’s her runner-up’s support for Arizona’s law that is fueling the whole kerfuffle.

During the interview portion, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly. “I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said.

Woolard handled the night’s toughest question, about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.

“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America,” Woolard said. “So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.”

As old-timers around her know, I was in the Miss America pageant, which is not to be confused with Miss USA. I entered pageants to put myself through college, as many know, because it’s the only way I could get it done. In the interview, which in the Miss American pageant back then wasn’t televised, I was asked about busing and integration, which was hitting Missouri at the time. I was very political from a very young age due to the influence of my big brother, so I answered the question pulling no punches. Later I was told, in confidence, that it didn’t help my scoring or my chances (though my only goal was Miss Missouri, as I had my eye on college, then Broadway), especially after a feminist had recently won the Miss America pageant, with rumors running rampant that she’d shown up at a Gillette event with arm pit hair!

But this current kerfuffle is just so silly. Besides, since when did right wingers like Michelle Malkin and the always anti Muslim Debbie Schlussel begin caring about the Miss USA pageant?

Today, everything is political, especially when an Arab-American wins an American pageant, with her runner up being the poster girl for the right’s anti immigrant jihad.

Malkin and Schlussel are upset about one thing, that Miss USA is an Arab-American. Ms. Malkin was also hoping they’d crown the brave young woman who spoke her mind on immigration, but no Miss USA pageant official wants their new winner being asked about something so volatile in her first presser, especially a young woman who touts states rights in a beauty pageant that abhors political controversy.

Seriously, after Carrie Prejean why would Donald Trump want to get into the minefield of immigration?

The big pageants just aren’t what they used to be when politics, including inside the pageant itself, was pushed under the rug and everyone shrugged.

In the 21st century, their value has also diminished and with it the chance poor girls have for getting help for college. But considering Ms. Fakih is 24 years old, I’m not sure I understand why any young woman of that age wouldn’t rather be in the job world.

Read full story · Comments { 57 }

Israeli Govenment Denies Entry to Noam Chomsky

By on 16 May 2010

–updated–

Mr. Chomsky is not my brand of intellectual, but if this order came down from on high, based on Chomsky’s political beliefs, Israel just kissed their democratic credentials good-bye. It’s a huge mistake on every level.

According to Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, Chomsky was turned back at the Allenby Bridge border crossing on his way to speak at Bir Zeit University. According to reports, the Israeli government will send the reason denying Chomsky entry to the American Embassy.

Moustafa Barghouti has denounced the action, according to Raw Story, via YNet News (also see SCB’s In the News diary).

Chomsky, who is in his 80s, speaks with a voice of a man who has nothing left to lose. A speech at BU caused quite a stir in March.

With references to “slaughter” in Gaza and Israel’s successful efforts (with U.S. complicity) to quell protest and expressions of sympathy among Palestinians in the West Bank, Chomsky returned often to the apartheid theme. At one point he described Gaza’s living conditions as being worse than the bantustans, the so-called homelands of apartheid South Africa. He later referred to Israel’s actions in sealed-off Gaza as a campaign of extermination.

His comments were punctuated by his familiar refrain that the United States and Israel are “rogue states.” With few exceptions, U.S. support of Israel has been unflagging, he said.

“The world works like the Mafia, and we’re the don,” Chomsky said. “You do what we say or else.” Israel is on its way to becoming a pariah state, he continued, yet like South Africa, it receives increasingly lonely U.S. support.

Jewish identity or not, it’s clear that if this reported action by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government was based on Chomsky’s criticism of Israel, Israel is about to make even more enemies than they had before, something that benefits no one still hoping for a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel told rabbis that they’ve “screwed up the messaging” over the last years, but that the Obama administration is doing the right thing on policy regarding Israeli. Does this policy include a caveat for Israel when it comes to a nuclear-free Middle East?

The Obama administration has “screwed up the messaging” about its support for Israel over the past 14 months, and it will take “more than one month to make up for 14 months,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said on Thursday to a group of rabbis called together for a meeting in the White House.

[...] Dennis Ross, who runs the administration’s Iran policy, tried to allay fears during the meeting that by calling for a nuclear-free Middle East, US policy regarding Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities was changing.

Since 1995, Ross explained, the administration’s policy, supported by Israel, was to push for a nuclear-free Middle East in conjunction with comprehensive peace. Emanuel, according to a participant in the meeting, said, “We understand Israel’s full layer of deterrence.” …

The shoring up of Jewish support for 2012 has begun.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Eric Holder Goes to Congress Unprepared

By on 16 May 2010

“It’s time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say, ‘We’re all Arizonans now. … And in clear unison we say, ‘Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.’” – Sarah Palin

Talk about serving up red meat to the right. File it under unhelpful.

It doesn’t take any time to read the Arizona law, yet before going in front of Congress, Eric Holder hadn’t done so. How does the Attorney General of the United States explain such blatant unpreparedness? Simple, he can’t.

Now it’s encapsulated in a TV ad, with added punch of Gov. Brewer now having Sarah Palin by her side.

… Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin joined the national battle over Arizona’s controversial new immigration law Saturday, appearing with Gov. Jan Brewer in Phoenix to denounce the Obama administration’s criticism of the law.

“It’s time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say ‘We’re all Arizonans now and, in clear unity, we say Mr. President, do your job, secure our border,’” Palin said, standing beside Brewer at a Saturday afternoon press conference. [...]

… “And while Mexico’s president has begun to crack down on the violent drug cartels and corruption in his own country,” she continued, “It’s time for the United States government to enforce the rule of law as well.”

Brewer also took jabs at Obama and the federal government.

“Our border is being erased and our president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience,” she said.

An example of Palin’s “momma grizzlies,” ready and willing to defend the border, while denying the Arizona law will encourage racial profiling. Never mind that it’s the federal government that is supposed to create and enforce immigration policy.

Therein lies the rub. The feds, with Obama now in charge, is hamstrung by a Congress that can’t move forward on securing the borders because of politics. But when you have the chief law enforcement officer parading on Capitol Hill unprepared it looks like you either don’t care about the people’s real troubles along the dangerous border of Mexico, or simply aren’t taking the real issue of border security seriously.

The Arizona law isn’t the answer. However, in an election year will Pres. Obama or the Congress have the will to do anything about it?

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

NRA v. Members on Terror-Gap, while Palin Says Obama Would Ban Guns

By on 15 May 2010



The NRA has no problem with possible terrorists purchasing firearms, while Think Progress found that NRA members feel differently. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin let fly a fantasy about Obama banning guns. Hey, it’s an NRA convention, it’s fact free.

[...] Moreover, the NRA strongly objects to closing the “terror gap,” calling legislation dealing with the issue “21st Century McCarthyism.” Bloomberg is “abusing the word ‘terrorist’ to resurrect and pursue a gun-control agenda,” an NRA spokesperson said.

But it appears that rank-and-file NRA members disagree with their leadership. Today at the NRA’s annual conference in Charlotte, NC, ThinkProgress asked dozens of NRA members if those on the terrorist watch list should be able to purchase firearms and an overwhelming majority agreed with Bloomberg on the need to close the “terror gap.” …

Three cheers for these NRA members, who should immediately fire their “leadership.”

It’s common sense. If someone is deemed a potential threat that person should not be able to buy firearms.

The NRA leadership’s naked capitalism at the expense of our country never ends. It also doesn’t make any sense if you consider conservative views on Miranda rights and other protected rights of people suspected, but not yet proven guilty.

But this is just silly talk from Sarah:

“Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment,” said Palin, a lifelong NRA member who once had a baby shower at a local gun range in Alaska. “It’s the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks.”

Dumb, but also not in evidence. It was Pres. Obama who actually signed a law that allows people to carry guns inside national parks. Not exactly the behavior of someone ready to ban guns.

No doubt the NRA members sucked it up anyway.

I’m just surprised Sarah didn’t use the opportunity to hoist her moose rifle over her head and bellow the infamous Charlton Heston line. “From my cold dead hands” is perfect for Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 41 }

You Can’t be a Feminist if You Don’t Support Women’s Freedoms

By on 14 May 2010

Gallup needs to enter the 21st century.

Their new poll under the title “The New Normal on Abortion: Americans More “Pro-Life” reveals the organization is pushing an agenda. Proving that when Gallup aids the anti women’s rights community, of which I’ve had to face the hard choice, so trust me that I know this subject intimately.

Certainly much better than Sarah Palin, who today at the Susan B. Anthony List breakfast, which I covered this morning, ranted on and on while using anti women’s rights language, evidently not at all concerned that her usual rhetoric extolling the values and importance of freedoms doesn’t extend to women.

Sarah and her supporters need to understand that you simply cannot be a feminist if you don’t support a woman’s individual right to freedom.

Anything less simply renders you a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud.

From Emily’s List president Stephanie Schriock in response to Mrs. Palin:

“Sarah Palin talks a good game about ‘grizzly bear moms’ taking the country back – but I come from the West too, and her version of what American women want doesn’t honor the freedom and independence that the women I grew up with in Montana cherish,” said Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY’s List. Referring to the “Palin 4” – four Democratic Congresswomen whom Palin displayed on her Facebook page – Schriock continued: “First she puts targets on their back, then she wants the government in their bedrooms – what is Sarah Palin doing to western women?” “Palin doesn’t seem to trust American women to make their own decisions – though she speaks movingly about her own. I believe all American women are entitled to the freedom and independence I grew up with, and that EMILY’s List endorsed candidates continue to fight for in states across this country.” – SCHRIOCK TO PALIN: YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR MY FRONTIER

I guess Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards, is off having late tea or perhaps hitting early cocktails, though her ineptitude has already been proven. As for NARAL and NOW, they’re completely ineffectual, so nothing is expected.

It’s time for Gallup to take a page from NPR’s neutrality stance when talking about reproductive rights. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been if Gallup had chosen abortion rights supporter (or advocate) and abortion rights opponent (or advocate). However, they have to support the status quo, which comes from another era. Until they change the language we should all take this organization for what it is: an organization that pushes language that marginalizes women’s rights in order to get a specific outcome, which benefits the right in this country, regardless of party.

Unfortunately, one particular part of the poll didn’t pan out for Gallup, so they buried the statistics. When asked if abortion was “morally wrong,” the number dropped from 56% who believed it is immoral in mid-2009, to 50% believing it is not immoral now in 2010. The opinion that abortion is “morally acceptable” numbers going up by 2%.

“Pro life” Independents, with no leaning to either party, have retreated by 2% points from their high of 47% in 2007-2008, back down to 45%.

But really, it’s all mumbo jumbo, because Gallup has stacked the language against women’s rights and freedoms.

Gallup’s “new normal” isn’t either and reveals what happens when you publicize the wrong answers, while asking the wrong questions. The “pro life” versus “pro choice” paradigm is 20th century language, which is not only outdated, but offensively false in its narrative against women. It gives Gallup away from the get go.

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.

But no one should be able to take a woman’s freedom away from her, which is what Sarah Palin and her feministic followers want to do. Anyone who tries to strip women of our individual freedoms is not for women’s rights, but also against women’s freedoms, and they most certainly aren’t a feminist in any real, true or important manifestation of the word.

I respect Sarah Palin and conservative women to make decisions that fit their lives and philosophy. Unfortunately, they do not respect mine.

Freedom is not just for men.

Human rights are women’s rights, which include individual freedom, which no one has the right to abridge.

The title of this essay has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

The Oil Industry is Clueless, But ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Anyway

By on 14 May 2010

The amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico is far greater than official estimates suggest, according to an exclusive NPR analysis. At NPR’s request, experts analyzed video that BP released Wednesday. Their findings suggest the BP spill is already far larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska, which spilled at least 250,000 barrels of oil. [...] – NPR

Adm. Thad Allen said that we’ll know if the “top hat” will work later today, as BP tries yet another hail Mary.

Regardless, this disaster has now warranted the possibility of federal charges, which are likely to come BP’s way. From McClatchy:

Federal investigators are likely to file criminal charges against at least one of the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico spill, raising the prospects of significantly higher penalties than a current $75 million cap on civil liability, legal experts say.

The inquiry by the Homeland Security and Interior Departments into how the spill occurred is still in its early stages and authorities have not confirmed whether a criminal investigation has been launched.

But environmental law experts say it’s just a matter of time until the Justice Department steps in – if it hasn’t already – to initiate a criminal inquiry and take punitive action.

“There is no question there’ll be an enforcement action,” said David M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section for seven years during the Clinton and Bush administrations. “And, it’s very likely that there will be at least some criminal charges brought.”

Such a likelihood has broad legal implications for BP and the two other companies involved — not the least of which is the amount of money any responsible party could be required to pay. The White House is asking Congress to lift the current $75 million cap on liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but there’s no cap on criminal penalties. In fact, prosecutors in such cases can seek twice the cost of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill. [...]

It could have been prevented.

It should have been prevented.

But it wasn’t.

…and they still don’t know what the hell to do.

Yet many mindless Americans cling to “drill, baby, drill,” with Pres. Obama still on board while currently chanting “wait now, drill later.” We’ll see if he has anything of worth to say today in the Rose Garden.

Lift the $75 million cap on liability, with criminal penalties deserved at multiple times over the “twice the cost” guide. We’ve got to make it too expensive for massive incompetence and negligence like this to occur. As I’m fully aware we will not stop the off-shore drilling, so financial penalties that hurt is our only recourse.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Sarah Palin Takes on Arizona Boycott

By on 14 May 2010

–bumped & updated with Palin’s SBA List speech below–

Well, it’s not softball, but it’s ripe with irony. It’s a story about girls being kept from playing basketball, and the politics being played around it.

Seems Mrs. Palin’s a bit miffed that a school in Illinois won’t allow the team to travel to Arizona for the “hoop tournament.” Sarah let’s fly on Facebook:

[...] The assistant superintendent claims that a trip to Arizona “would not be aligned with our beliefs and values.” But apparently the school has no problem sending kids on trips to China, which has a population control policy that is anti-girl in practice – contributing to female infanticide and abandonment and sex-selective abortions. So, is China – with its many serious human rights violations (too many to list here) – “aligned” with the “values and beliefs” of the school? But our sister-state of Arizona is not? Really? This is ridiculous and totally unfair to the girls who just want to play ball. Going to Arizona to play in a tournament will not endanger them, and the ban sure doesn’t solve the problem of unsecured borders.

These boycotts of Arizona will not help the state or lead to positive change. Economic and political boycotts of our nation’s 48th state will hurt all Arizonans – including all members of the Hispanic community. If people really want to help, they should tell President Obama to do his job: secure the border. If he were to do his job, the good people of Arizona, who have been overwhelmed by violence on their border, would not feel compelled to do it for him.

Notice that she even takes a page out of Hillary Clinton’s women’s rights are human rights playbook?

Go rogue, young girls, and go play ball, chants “has-been ball player” Palin.

They’ve won their school’s first conference title in 26 years, but now because a school bureaucrat – an assistant superintendent – wants to play politics, they’re not allowed to play ball.

Sorry, folks, but on this one I’m with Sarah.

Keep the kids out of it.

UPDATE (10:14 a.m.): Sarah Palin now speaking in front of the Susan B. Anthony pro selective life organization. Notes follow: Her speeches are becoming more and more a random issue, taped together montage of her favorite things, with no through line at all. Palin claiming that “most of the Tea Party are women.” “Standin’ up against the machine,” taking stances against “your party” on “life issues,” Palin talks about her pro selective life, which mirrors SBA list. On Obama: “The most pro abortion president that ever occupied the White House.” Sarah continues, saying “All feminists who believe in the culture of life,” contending that the feminist movement was always pro selective life. “Trig has been the best thing that has ever happened to me and the Palin family.” Her words on special needs are moving, there’s not questioning that part. Next of to Bristol’s unwanted pregnancy, talking about her being on the national stage and taking heat; no mention of Sarah Palin’s part in putting Bristol on parade during campaign 2008. Her situation hasn’t changed her views on abortion, but has changed her “perspective,” so that she understands what women go through, knowing “choosing life isn’t always the easiest path, but it’s always the right path.” Again, Sarah Palin and other pro selective life individuals believe that freedom is not for women, because they want to curtail the self-determination rights of women. Then she brings up the pioneering spirit of western women who settled in the west, segueing to marketing her upcoming NRA speech, but also her belief that she’s a “frontier feminist.” News flash: You cannot be a feminist if you want to curtail the freedoms of women. Now, she’s off to talk to Greta Van Susteren from Fox, which she makes certain the announcer mentions to the SBA women attending.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Quote of the Day

By on 13 May 2010

“[...] The United States will continue to target assistance to women in areas ranging from girls’ education, to better health services, particularly maternal health, to protecting women from violence, to enhancing their roles in agriculture and the economy. [...] And I make the same pledge to the women of Afghanistan. We will not abandon you. We will stand with you always. I am so impressed and admiring of the contributions that women have made in all of Afghanistan’s history, but particularly in recent history and especially in the last years. And I will be their partner and their supporter as they continue to make improvements in their lives and the lives of their children and families. Thank you very much.” – Sect. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Standing with Clinton was the Afghan Minister of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and the Disabled, Minister Afzali, the acting Minister of Health, Dr. Dalil, as well as the Director of Gender and Human Rights in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Osman, all of whom are women.

So, to repeat what I wrote in response to the FP article, the women of Afghanistan have not been betrayed. Pres. Obama is keeping his word to these women through the tireless purpose of Sect. Clinton.

Of course, whether we can ever afford to utilize the large counterinsurgencies that came out of the Bush era and gave us Iraq, then continued under Obama through our current efforts in Afghanistan, is another matter entirely. Short answer: we cannot.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Dems Remain Up Against It in 2010

By on 13 May 2010

Overall, the survey found that voters were split over which party they preferred to control Congress after November, with 44% favoring each party. But that finding masked the overwhelming Republican advantage among the voters most likely to cast ballots on Election Day. The voters who said they were most interested in the November elections favor Republican control of Congress by a 20-point margin, with 56% backing the GOP and 36% backing Democrats—the highest gap all year on that question. – Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll

It’s been a constant theme. Historic health care legislation passes, but Democrats are not benefiting. It’s now set “in concrete,” according to the new WSJ/NBC poll, which not only points to harsh realities on health care, but also on immigration, which do not favor Democratic philosophy, with Hispanics on the side of the left, but not very excited about voting in 2010.

Some 64% said they strongly or somewhat supported the law, compared with 34% who strongly or somewhat opposed it. [...] But Hispanics were far less interested in this year’s elections than key Republican-leaning groups, meaning that the benefits of this trend might not accrue to the Democrats until at least the 2012 elections.

None of this, however, is necessarily bad news at this point for Pres. Obama, who remains enormously popular, though his policies are now greeted with skepticism by a bare majority of the people, according to this poll. However, Republicans are being driven in 2010 by a strong disapproval of Obama and Democratic policies to the tune of 64% oppose.

The one number that is devastating for Democrats is the suburban women number.

Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. In the latest survey, they narrowly favored Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround was seen among voters 65 and older.

Oh, and if you thought the BP Gulf oil disaster would change minds, well, we’re still in a “drill, baby, drill” state of mind.

That’s because this country has slowly, but steadily shifted right, more conservative since the financial crisis hit. However, do not confuse this with necessarily supporting Republicans. It’s about a stingier, less liberal life view, whether we’re talking foreign involvement, women’s rights, immigration, but especially financial over spending and general Wall Street malfeasance. It’s clear Americans are just not feeling certain about their own futures, let alone America’s, which creates a much more cautious approach to everything that includes not trusting who’s been in charge up until now.

But don’t for a minute think this is a window into 2012, because there is no indication that voters are committed to any particular party or their platform; everything is in flux. Though with economics now taking the lead in people’s minds, Mitt Romney is no doubt hoping it is.



graphic via Wall Street Journal (to enlarge graphic click here )

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Obama: ‘I love you and I love Arlen Specter.’

By on 13 May 2010

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak continues his stretch run in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate primary and now trails incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter by a too-close-to-call 44 – 42 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 14 percent of Democrats are undecided, and 29 percent of those who name a candidate say they might change their mind. [...] – Specter-Sestak Dem Primary Too Close To Call

Next week Arkansas, Kentucky (where Tea Party candidate Rand Paul is taking his fight against establishment to Mitch McConnell’s doorstep – and doing very well in the process), Oregon, with a special election in Hawaii (with Democrats in complete disarray giving Republicans a real in), and Pennsylvania hold primaries.

The DSCC is pouring funds into the race on behalf of Arlen Specter in a race that has Joe Sestak surging.

… The Specter campaign has not gone out of its way to reveal this fact. The Youtube version of the Obama ad sent out yesterday to reporters featured a disclaimer at the end indicating that the ad was being funded by the Specter campaign.

But a version of the ad that’s actually running on at least two Pennsylvania stations — sent my way by a Pennsylvania Democrat — features this disclaimer: “Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.” [...]

I’ve had the pleasure of working independently on behalf of Joe Sestak back when he ran against Curt Weldon. I’ve interviewed Sestak several times, among having other interactions.

I’ve also been part of a small new media conference call with Sen. Specter, who was more open and forthcoming than I anticipated.

It’s remarkable that Sestak has closed the gap, especially since the Obama White House is working hard against him. But once Specter swiftboated Joe Sestak over his military record the negative blowback said it all.

Anything can still happen in this race, but Pres. Obama has put his credibility on the line in Pennsylvania, which in an anti-incumbent year may not be enough for Arlen Specter, who’s been around a long time as a Republican.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama Takes a Page from Sarah Palin

By on 12 May 2010

Welcome to Elena Kagan’s infomercial.

What a colossally ham-handed tactic it is.

“Kagan in her own words,” sanitized for your perusal.

From CBS, which reveals some media frustration, which is just about as silly:

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today’s White House briefing.

“It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president’s announcement,” said a reporter. “You’ve now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?”

“I think it’s — I think it’s on the website if you want to see it,” responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, “So a White House staffer interviewing her.”

Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.

“She has — she’s not told me that, no,” replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, “Tell her we’re deeply frustrated.”

Like Elena Kagan was going to sit for press interviews at this point. Equally silly is that some are actually defending this nonsense.

But it’s obvious the Obama White House is paying close attention to Sarah Palin’s media strategy.

I’m not the only one who caught this either. Jonathan Turley even posted their pictures side by side.

That a woman who is supposed to be as accomplished as Elena Kagan actually agreed to sit down to deliver such sophomoric drivel reveals a subservience to presidential marketing that numbs the mind.

This is the level to which Supreme Court nominations have been reduced.

As Mediaite drooled about the White House’s access, “Man, that’s one helluva ‘get.’”

Read full story · Comments { 10 }