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 | June, 2010

The Thrill is Gone

By on 16 June 2010

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

It’s quite interesting to watch the media come out of their collective swoon. The clip here is really stunning coming from Olbermann and Matthews, though less so of Fineman.

Some concrete news just breaking (3:04 pm eastern) from Politico is that BP will pay “no further dividends to shareholders this year.”

The White House also says that BP has “tentatively agreed” that the oil company will create a $20B fund to pay claims. “Pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg who mediated the 9/11 victims fund will reportedly administer it. As an aside on one other matter covered in the article linked above, I honestly don’t know how the Administration can legally compel BP to pay the lost wages of workers laid off due to the federal offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf. It seems like a preposterous gambit on the Administration’s part, especially when it comes with the backdrop of Obama’s offshore drilling policy, which Interior Sect. Salazar set into motion, unleashing more acreage for drilling than ever before, while okaying BP’s ultra-deep water drill without a second thought. It reeks of Administration cya.

Two blunders from the White House political office, because both of the above announcements should have been part of any Oval Office Address. What’s one day?

All of this played out this morning on “Morning Joe.” You know they’re in trouble on a day when only Mike Barnicle is making sense, and Mika goes on a full shrill drill. I know, there’s that word, but she was like the thought police today, protecting Pres. Obama from bad reviews he’d earned. (Robert Reich called the speech “vapid.”) For those of you who didn’t watch “Morning Joe” this morning, the only political show I never miss, it was Joe and especially Mika tiptoeing through self-imposed etiquette landmines trying not to notice the content lameness that only Chuck Todd managed to analyze with any clarity this morning. That is until Chris Matthews poured cold coffee in the “Morning Joe” crew’s cup. Not a good morning today for Joe and Mika who whipsawed between Mika’s journalistic defensiveness of Obama, and Joe Scarborough’s new countenance, which seems to now be focused on eschewing his signature straight talk, instead adopting a middle-of-the-road stance that amounts to mush. Joe deciding to ride some moderation rail, which may be a shot at bipartisan hosting, something that never works, doesn’t suit him, especially since his real value is blunt assessment from a man who’s been there and knows politics. The “Morning Joe” joviality aspect is the board on which the show was made popular, so when they disagree it’s like watching a dunk tank dip. Not pretty.

Meanwhile, no one knows how to plug the hole stop the ever changing amount of oil gushing into the Gulf… as the ecological and environmental holocaust continues.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Politics and the Israeli Flotilla Raid Investigations

By on 16 June 2010

–updated–

President Barack Obama’s point-man for his latest approach to the Muslim world is John Brennan, the White House’s counterterrorism czar, recently described by the Washington Post as one of the president’s most trusted advisers. Two weeks ago Brennan explained to a Washington audience that “we need to try to build up the more moderate elements” within Hezbollah, Lebanon’s Shia militia. The State Department rushed in to explain that there was no change in U.S. policy toward a group it has designated a terrorist organization—however, this was the second time Brennan had spoken of reaching out to Hezbollah “moderates” (and the second time he was corrected by the State Department), which means he has the president’s approval. [...] – Extreme Makeover – Tablet Magazine

If you haven’t noticed, Israel’s international status is crumbling. “We are getting on the nerves of every government,” Laura Rozen reports one Israeli journalist as saying, commenting on the continued fallout five months later from the suspected Mossad hit in Dubai. To add another development that happened after I originally posted this essay, Alan Dershowitz is fundraising against Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, backing the Tea Partier Joel Pollak.

The caterwauling from Tablet Magazine seems to be moored in one outrageous point of reality: (Pres. Obama) takes a much more pessimistic—and more realistic—view of the region’s political culture than the Bush Administration did. One would only hope; after all, Bush gave us Hamas leadership in Gaza.

Because of this realist view born from regional intractability, Tablet next jumps (the shark) to the main page of the Obama haters pamphlet by utilizing talking points straight from Sean Hannity. Seriously, this next bit of regurgitated right-wing rhetoric could just as easily be a transcript from Hannity’s radio show:

President Obama has keyed in on Muslim extremists because his own history shows that it’s the strategically sound choice. The lesson that extremism is the foundation of political legitimacy in politically charismatic communities was driven home to the president, Sunday after Sunday, as he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. Obama, a half-white community organizer from Hawaii by way of Harvard Law School, did not seek to establish his bona fides in Chicago’s black community by attending the church of some middle-class black pastor who would speak about the glories of mowing the lawn every Sunday. The politically ambitious Obama chose to sit in the church of a man who spouted lunatic conspiracy theories about how the CIA was killing black babies not because he believed it, but because he knew back then that extremists confer legitimacy—especially when you are an outsider hoping to curry favor with the locals, as he is now with the Muslim world.

Sean Hannity will return after this next commercial break.

For those in the reality based community, here’s the backdrop of what’s swirling, which was posted Monday from FP:

“We stand by Israel and we’ll voice our strong views against any action that is one-sided or biased by any international organization,” Crowley said. “I’m not aware that the secretary general has yet made any decisions on steps the UN might take. We’ll listen to what the secretary general has in mind and make a judgment then.”

That type of hedging is exactly what many Israel supporters, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are concerned about. “AIPAC calls on the Obama administration to act decisively at the United Nations and other international forums to block any action — including alternative investigations supported by the Secretary General — which would isolate Israel,” the group said in a statement. [...]

Going forward, there is still a lot of concern among Israelis about the prominent role Jones is playing in the shaping of the administration’s Israel policy. The conventional wisdom is that Jones, along with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, are the ones inside the administration pushing for a harder line vis-à-vis Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, while Biden, the NSC’s Dennis Ross, and to an extent Special Envoy George Mitchell are said to advocate a position more sensitive to Netanyahu’s own political situation.

J-Street is openly confronting a letter writing campaign by AIPAC, which everyone is couching as the first war between the new guys on the lobby block and the old hands, AIPAC. The right-wing campaign has already gained a lot of congressional support. It’s a very interesting confrontation, with progressive J-Street challenging not only the goals of the letters, domestic politics as elections gear up, but also the effectiveness given the seriousness of Israel’s flotilla raid fiasco, which has real ramifications for any efforts taking two-state talks forward. From J-Street:

J Street – the pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby – is not supporting sign-on letters to the President now circulating in the House regarding the Gaza flotilla. As is far too often the case, these letters have been drafted primarily for domestic political consumption rather than to advance the U.S. interest in peace and security in the Middle East.

With tensions in the region already high and vital American and Israeli interests at stake, J Street urges members of Congress to seek changes to the letters currently circulating before signing – or to write their own.

The window of opportunity for a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is closing rapidly, and statements like those now circulating in Congress only push the window down harder. J Street fears that, in the years ahead, lawmakers will come to regret the failure of the United States to exercise real leadership toward ending the conflict. Failure now to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dooms the region to further violence and puts at risk the very Jewish and democratic home in the state of Israel that lawmakers are purporting to support so deeply.

We would ask lawmakers to demonstrate real courage and leadership at this critical moment to call on the President to turn crisis into opportunity and to make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a central priority of his foreign policy. The test for Congressional statements should not be their acceptability to any one lobby group (including J Street) but whether they advance the American, Israeli and regional interest in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieving a two-state solution before it is too late.

PM Netanyahu has already stiff-armed the idea of a U.N. sponsored investigation. However, that reality is moving forward regardless of Israel’s nod, which the international community does not see as relevant.

From Ben Smith:

A diplomat with one Security Council member country said that 14 of 15 nations had expressed support for some form of panel established by the secretary general — rather than by a Security Council vote, which the United States could block — to investigate the deaths on a Turkish ship bound for Gaza. The U.S. was the sole nation not to support the measure in the closed session, the source said.

Earlier Tuesday, Palestinian U.N. representative Riyad Mansour expressed his support for “the secretary general’s decision to proceed with his idea of having an international investigation under his auspices.”

The U.S. position on the panel — amid intense support for it among U.N. members — has been to wait and see what Ban proposes. “As we always do, we will work hard to make sure that Israel is not treated unfairly at the U.N.,” a U.S. official said.

The usual suspects will no doubt balk at what’s being reported coming from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, because the U.N. is seen as notoriously hostile to Israel. All of this happening as Amnesty International blasted Israel’s own investigative committee makeup, which everyone finds biased and stacked.

One wonders if Sen. Chuck Schumer will trip over this latest development in order to get to the podium and further complicate Israel’s already untenable position.

What J-Street gets right is that Israel has to find a way to end the blockade. That does not mean, however, that Israel doesn’t have the right to search ships coming into Gaza for weapons, which makes sense to anyone knowing the history.

What AIPAC and the usual suspects continue to get wrong is that Netanyahu has to find a way to deal with Hamas, who regardless of the terrorist history, remains the elected body in charge of Gaza. Don’t blame me for stating the obvious, see George W. Bush who basically handed Hamas the keys to Gaza.

Now a little reality. Dealing with thugs and enemies is what diplomacy is about. The U.S. has been engaging our enemies for over two-hundred years. It’s just bizarre that Israel doesn’t understand the basic tenet of negotiation, which includes coming to terms with your enemies first and foremost, especially when you’re sandwiched amidst them.

If John F. Kennedy had treated the Cuban Missile Crisis like Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders treat their relationship with Hamas and the Palestinians, add on the Israeli enablers in the American body politic, Florida and the eastern coast would likely still be a wasteland.

Israel is no longer a fledgling democracy. It’s a strong nation with allies, a vast military intelligence system, not to mention a conventional and nuclear military that dwarfs her enemies and neighbors. That Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli government continue to act like an immature state instead of the great state it is not only stokes a cycle of violence and humanitarian tragedy, while creating more enemies out of the next generation, but makes Israel look like they aren’t capable of seeing themselves in any role other than victim. This chosen stance is as outdated as it is dangerous to Israeli’s future and Middle East stability as a whole.

Mr. Netanyahu buying time in the hopes that Republicans take over in Washington come November is not an effective diplomatic policy, but it seems to be the fallback position of the current Israeli government, which they and their right-wing allies seem determined to take forward into 2012.

Our special relationship will never be broken, but it’s long past time the United States started treating Israel like a grown-up instead of a protectorate. Our independence from Israel is crucial to U.S. Middle East interests and the stability to the region. This is especially true since the Netanyahu government has proven they are not serious about any talks that give Palestinians what they deserve, which is a state of their own.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Day 57: We Have a Disconnect

By on 15 June 2010

In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely. – Pres. Barack Obama

What was he talking about?

It reminded me of something Dan Froomkin reported earlier:

Heightening that concern is Obama’s new conviction, first expressed Monday afternoon after touring a staging facility in Alabama, that “in the end, I am confident that we’re going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before.”

That is a “ridiculous statement, and worrying,” said Susan Shaw, the director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute. “Obviously he has no idea of the consequences, or doesn’t want to.”

There is also no evidence that the relief well is “expected to stop the leak completely.” But Pres. Obama has more problems than that after his first Oval Office Address.

There was no vision at all.

There was no larger arc for energy.

And if you believe this is an environmental 9/11 for this country, which I do, like George W. Bush after our nation’s great tragedy in 2001, there was no larger call to action.

I would also have preferred tough talk in place of a prayer, like what Al Gore said today: “Stop censoring news from the Gulf”: This behavior is completely unacceptable. Access by reporters should be as unfettered as possible. This de facto form of censorship needs to stop.

Pres. Obama was heartfelt and finally had the background of what has happened since the BP blowout after his latest visit there. That’s the good news. But he had no purpose and didn’t come close to rallying the nation to a common cause. There was no lift or inspirational message on how we take the BP ecological tragedy and turn it into a wider calling for this country.

The worst part of it was Pres. Obama telling the American people that a relief well is “expected to stop the leak completely.” This is actually an unknown and a huge risk and doesn’t share the very real dangers the relief well also poses, which are great, especially considering BP hasn’t been able to deliver on anything they’ve promised so far.

“Command and control” are not two words I’d take away from Pres. Obama’s speech tonight and that’s exactly what was needed to be conveyed.

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Amnesty International: Israeli Flotilla Commission ‘a disappointment, missed opportunity’

By on 15 June 2010

Israel agreed to an investigation on the tragic Gaza flotilla raid, which was forced on them, but still the right thing to do. But as I expected, Israel has chosen to play into their enemies’ hands through the way they have decided to set up the commission. They’re getting slammed, which was predictable. It will convince the international community that Israel is brazenly irresponsible, and further ostracize the Netanyahu government. I’m presently waiting to hear Sen. Chuck Schumer’s praise.

From Amnesty International:

The Commission will not have access to members of the Israeli military who were involved in the planning and implementation of the military action, except for the Chief of Staff, and there is nothing to indicate that its findings or recommendations will be binding.

The Commission will be chaired by former Israeli high court judge Jacob Turkel, a specialist in civil law who has also served as a judge on military court appeals panels. The other two Commission members will be Amos Horev, a retired major-general and former chief scientist of Israel’s defense establishment, and Shabbtai Rosen, a professor of international law at Bar Ilan University and former representative of Israel to the United Nations.

The two international observers, David Trimble, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, and Ken Watkin, former head of Canada’s military judiciary, will only participate in the hearings and discussions of the Commission as observers.

Any information considered “almost certain to cause substantial harm” to Israel’s national security or foreign relations, by the Commission chair can be withheld from the international observers.

Giving voice to the outrage that Israel doesn’t get, Stéphane Hessel, a Holocaust survivor, has a sobering take down of Israel that ends by calling for international artists, writers and academics to illustrate their displeasure with Israel “simply by having nothing more to do with this criminal government.”

The Israeli people have to understand that PM Netanyahu is endangering their country. His decisions continue to flaunt carnage and encourage diplomatic mayhem, while the world waits for sense to come out of a government that shows none.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Minds Like Michelle Malkin Gave us the BP Blowout

By on 15 June 2010

… Fully 87% favor including a provision in comprehensive energy legislation to require utilities to produce more energy from wind, solar or other renewable sources. More than three-quarters (78%) favor tougher efficiency standards for building and major appliances. By greater than two-to-one (66% to 29%), the public supports including limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in comprehensive energy legislation. Yet about as many (68%) favor expanded exploration and development of coal, oil and gas in the United States. [...] – Public Remains of Two Minds on Energy Policy

Pres. Obama will give a national address from the Oval Office, which should signal just how grave the BP blowout is to this country. From Marc Ambinder:

Tonight’s speech comes at an inflection point in the oil spill — and the President will outline the plan going forward. First, he’ll lay out how we will deal with the oil that has leaked and what must be done to both cleanup now and ultimately restore the Gulf. Second, he will outline the steps being taken to help and protect those suffering economically as a result of this disaster, particularly in the claims process. Third, he will outline the changes he believes are necessary to ensure that a disaster such as this never happens again. Last, he will talk about what our fundamental energy approach must be going forward to reduce our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. President Obama understands the challenges and has a clear plan to meet them.

If you want to know what’s wrong with the right on energy, see Michelle Malkin. It’s her kind of politics that should rally people behind the President.

Malkin’s warped view should also give you a good idea of what Barack Obama is up against tonight. She’s calling Rep. Henry Waxman the “witch hunter of Capitol Hill,” because big bad Henry is being too tough on the poor little oil companies.

Malkin obviously is unmoved by an ecosystem being destroyed, while small businesses that have been around for generations struggle to stay afloat.

Teddy Roosevelt she is not.

Being a champion and steward of American natural resources is unimportant to her and others like her on the right. Shorter Malkin: let the birds die.

Malkin’s people don’t want regulation, the softening of which is how we got into this predicament in the first place, aided by Interior Sect. Salazar’s incompetence. They vilify the politicians and the people who are trying to hold marauding companies like BP accountable for what they do, with the BP Blowout now known to have been caused by corporate malfeasance, skirting safety for cost custting, which has ended up in destroying the Gulf Coast.

However, with the peanut gallery right thinking government is being too tough on Big Oil, no matter what Pres. Obama says tonight it will be greeted with “job killer” reviews. That’s the card the right always plays when Democrats try to move this country away from fossil fuels.

Remember what the right did to Al Gore when he talked about moving beyond the combustion engine? Meanwhile, Democrats ignored him. Visionaries are never respected, but if we ever needed one we do now.

There is no evidence Pres. Obama is a visionary. But horrific challenges can bring the best out in brilliant men and women.

The problem with tonight’s Oval Office Address is what Pres. Obama can’t and won’t say. He will not say when or if BP can plug the hole. No one knows that answer, which should make the Malkin brigade public environmental enemy number one.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Bill Clinton as Asset Makes People Say Crazy Things

By on 15 June 2010

He pointed out that President Obama’s approval ratings are much lower in these competitive districts than they are nationally: 54 percent of the likely battleground voters disapproved of Obama’s performance; 40 percent approved. “It’s very problematic for the president to have a 40 percent approval rating in these 60 Democratic districts,” Bolger said. “When you look at history, when the president is below 50 percent nationally, his party tends to lose more than 40 seats.” – Tough Road Ahead For Democrats

It’s smart people who don’t hold grudges. The ones who do just come off petty and small.

Josh Marshall spins himself into the floor on this one: Obama Oddly Unpopular in Former Slave States.

Pres. Obama and former Pres. Clinton have long ago put away the primary battles, a credit to political pragmatism that spreads through politicians when they need help on something or in a voting arena where they can’t help themselves. Being in the small fraternity of former presidents helps.

But the lengths people will go to contort rhetoric to fit a world view that ignores the obvious is remarkable. This is particularly stunning when smart people do it. Opining on a Roll Call article, Josh Marshall trips.

The gist of the piece is that Clinton is turning out to be an important asset in this cycle since there are many parts of the country where he can go and campaign effectively where Barack Obama just can’t. I talked to one candidate running in a race below the Mason-Dixon line a while back. And this person told me that where he’s running, outside of the few places, Barack Obama is just toxic. Not surprising. But it was bracing to hear it from the candidate’s own mouth.

What strikes me about the Roll Call article is that there’s not a single mention in the piece that Barack Obama is … well, black.

… A big part of the importance of Bill Clinton this year is that he can slip into parts of the country where President Obama is a political liability and give Democrats some presidential star power. Those places are predominantly in the South or to a degree even more in the border states. You simply can’t explain this phenomenon without taking the President’s race into serious account. The truth is that it’s not either/or but additive. The layers of politics and race are reinforcing. But it’s there.

Amidst an economic climate that is very worrisome, which we all can rightly say Obama inherited from Bush, Marshall never mentions the economics of Clinton’s appeal. Nobody can address it better in the Democratic Party, because the 1990s was a feel better time, something that can obviously aid Obama today.

On analyzing the economics, Marshall instead remains mute.

No doubt he’ll never mention Sect. Clinton, who like other secretaries of state has jumped over her president in popularity. Being apolitical has its perks. (It’s also important to remember that TPM didn’t think women were relevant in 2008, a moment when the first woman won a presidential primary, but we also saw Republicans finally putting a woman on the ticket.)

Coming from a former slave state, Missouri, and living in one now (one that Obama won in 2008, but likely won’t in 2012), I’m not about to doubt Clinton’s Bubba appeal, too. In Pennsylvania-12 former Pres. Bill Clinton made a difference because he can speak the language of Pennsylvanians. However, that Marshall can write an entire review on the Roll Call piece and extrapolate race by saying “it’s there,” without also understanding and mentioning the competing narrative is just, well, myopic at best.

There is also no doubt that Tea Party racists bent on impeachment, as seen in this video, are out there, but they are a very small minority who not even Clinton’s economic populism can reach.

Marshall talks to a politician who says that Obama is “toxic.” If Marshall is saying this is based solely on “well, he’s black,” then he’s not only wrong, but so biased as to be blinded.

We know that Blanche Lincoln was helped by Clinton, but also by postcards of Pres. Obama and the knowledge African American voters had that the President was behind Lincoln, not Halter. Of course, there is no doubt that Southerners also appreciate Clinton’s “y’all.”

Still, Marshall is miffed because Roll Call doesn’t mention that Obama’s “well, black.”

On the other side, Marshall doesn’t mention once in his post the 1990s economy and how good people felt about things back during the Clinton era. That people still believe that William Jefferson Clinton felt their pain and helped their pocketbook.

Marshall goes to great lengths to remind everyone that Clinton is going into slave states where Obama being black isn’t appreciated. Playing the race card is something Pres. Obama doesn’t need and isn’t helpful. It also isn’t good analysis.

That Marshall ignores the overwhelming popularity of Barack Obama in African American communities in the south, whose vote matters immensely still and always will to Democrats, is another stunning omission in his post.

Yet Marshall basically says Bill Clinton can reach the racists in Southern, former slave states, while ignoring the African Americans who love Barack Obama, as well as those individuals who like remembering the 1990s good, old days.

Yes, Barack Obama is, well, black. But it’s the economy, stupid, still applies.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Dem Senators to BP: Set Up $20B ‘Special Account’

By on 14 June 2010



BP took measures to cut costs in the weeks before the catastrophic blowout in the Gulf of Mexico as it dealt with one problem after another, prompting a BP engineer to describe the doomed rig as a “nightmare well,” according to internal documents released Monday. The comment by BP engineer Brian Morel came in an e-mail April 14, six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and has sent tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf in the nation’s worst environmental disaster. – Huffington Post

Shorter: We’re not stupid, really, we’re not.

Full letter, with excerpts below:

“We are writing to express our profound concern over the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster and our deep regret for the severe consequences the continued outflow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is having on our nation and the way of life for millions of Americans. This tragedy has already taken the lives of 11 men, wounded 17 others, and caused billions of dollars in damages.”

“While we are pleased that BP has admitted liability for these damages and vowed to provide full remuneration for economic losses and clean-up costs, history has taught us that corporations often fail to live up to their initial promises.”

“Although legislative action is forthcoming, the damages are immediate. In order to ensure BP fully and quickly covers the costs of this disaster, we are calling on BP to immediately establish a special account of $20 billion, administered by an independent trustee, to be used for payment of economic damages and clean-up costs. Establishment of this account would serve as an act of good faith and as a first step towards ensuring that there will be no delay in payments or attempt to evade responsibility for damages.”

The man who set it all in motion was Pres. Obama, whose Interior Sect. Ken Salazar let BP do whatever they wanted, drilling a well that oil experts say should never have been drilled. Tell me again why this man still has a job?

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

The Teflon Whiner

By on 14 June 2010

“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11.. I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.” – Pres. Barack Obama

If only Pres. Barack Obama had personally reacted as if the BP blowout was our environment 9/11 (as I wrote here long before Obama invoked it). He did not. All this statement does is remind us all, not only of the Rolling Stone article and the reporting of Lisa Myers, but that Obama didn’t feel the need to react personally until the narrative got out of his control. But never fear, Obama’s teflon presidency is not in any danger. They like him. They really like him.

One can only imagine what would have happened if George W. Bush did what Barack Obama did yesterday. Oh, right, he did. Michael Moore documented it. However, it’s unlikely that Mr. Obama will receive the same treatment, even if it’s richly deserved.

It’s good to be Barack.

And after all this time, Barack Obama still won’t pit Republican policy bankruptcy against the enlightenment of Democratic Party principles. Obama’s focus is on brand, his brand and nothing else. It takes time to make Teflon non-stick. In fact, he won’t even call out the culprits stopping the Democratic agenda during this historic time of a Democratic majority.

The politics of purpose has meant no we can’t.

I’ve linked to and mentioned several times Matt Bai’s “Democrat in Chief?” recently, because it pits Obama’s brand obsession against the real need the Democratic Party has to have a leader that takes Democratic policy beliefs and points them forward to solving our immense challenges. After hearing the activist left rail against Bill Clinton’s inability to build a wider base in the 1990s, it’s no wonder we’re hearing even louder dissent grow against Pres. Obama who is more interested in the politics of compromise and consensus than the principles of Democratic purpose. As we saw in the health care debate, Obama is reactive, not pro-active, otherwise he would never have let Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal rise up above the Democratic public option narrative, and Ken Salazar would never have been unleashed on the environment, to concoct the worst record since Reagan’s James Watt.

Segue to Roger Simon’s odd interview with Pres. Obama, which was posted yesterday on Politico:

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much. Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying, this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

There was some real irritation in his voice when he said: “And so — and this translates into very concrete terms — I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies, and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, Big Government over-regulation and wasteful spending.”

Why Pres. Obama is acting like an insurance claims officer is beyond me.

The last paragraph above, delivered as a big fat whine, reveals such weakness and egotism as to be embarrassing for the man who holds the most powerful office in the world. Obama actually seems to care that there are some people who would complain about big government at a time when only government can solve the problem. However, considering what a colossal screw up Interior Sect. Ken Salazar has proven to be, even complicit in BP’s blowout, it’s not surprising. Obama’s whine is so anti-FDR as to be completely devoid of any Democratic foundation whatsoever. You’d think this was all about him. Unfortunately, for he and his loyalists it is.

Out of a long post on which I agree, Joan Walsh wrote four words that transcend both of our lengthy opining on Obama’s lack of leadership and current state of whining: Grow up, Mr. President.

Amidst an environmental 9/11 and ecological holocaust we’ve got a President who didn’t notice the moment until his own brand started to sag. Lucky for his Teflon presidency he caught it in time. But really, who can be angry at a man who never picks fights when needed, let alone on purpose, preferring to blame an amorphous “Washington” where Democrats work long hours in Congress to make changes that will help the American people.

Poor Congress. They suck up to Mr. Executive Branch, but all they’ve got to show for it is the back of Obama’s hand. I only wish it would teach these legislators that the founders’ gift of independence and separateness from the Executive Branch is power that should never be ceded.

All Obama’s whining comes on the wings of a disaster he and his administration helped create and where his actually policy prescriptions bode ill for any truly Democratic progress, but also for the brand that will be around long after Barack Obama is history.

The Democratic Party is rudderless, regardless of having a majority. Obama may survive and one hopes he will, as the alternatives appear worse at this point, though that’s not even a given at this point. But Obama does remain liked by the majority of Democrats, which Obama loyalists are always quick to point out and on which they remain correct.

But the Teflon coating sticking to the Obama brand is remarkably similar to the oil slicked Gulf that was allowed to happen on his watch. For Democrats it may leave a slimy sheen they won’t be able to wash off for years.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Say Good-bye to the Smack

By on 14 June 2010

I’m adding an update here, because I made a mistake when I first wrote on Risen’s “revelation” by not saying up front that this is not news. It’s been known. I’m just surprised the potential for oil wasn’t also mentioned, because the looming boom hovers out there on a yet unforeseen horizon. The point that needs to be made regarding Risen’s piece is larger, actually. The “news” is that it’s being blasted from the New York Times, which has the potential of changing the ballgame. That’s the true value of what’s now being hyped.

James Risen reports a tremendous story. Once the Taliban registers what this country is worth in minerals things may go from bad to worse, especially now that it’s been plastered across the New York Times.

Let me add here that Democracy Arsenal and Blake Hounshell do a take down of Risen on the known realities of his story.

But not to be gloomy, the news is quite stunning, even if it’s the back end of the story that will drive it:

[...] American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced. [...]

One mineral is niobium, which is needed in the conducting of steel. Makes you wonder if we’ll be in a fight with China on just whom will hold sway with Pres. Karzai. (Note: China has been involved on our side in Afghanistan because of their fear of Islamic extremists in China’s Xinjiang region, and made the largest investment ever in Afghanistan last year, so their involvement in this country isn’t new, though the stakes just ratcheted up. Another thing to consider is that China would not fight the Taliban, something to keep in mind.) He was corrupt before, but now there will be a new impetus in his greed. There is also no real mining infrastructure, which is obvious as there is no real foundation for anything in this country. That opens the door for all sorts of new friends popping up and they won’t all be U.S.’s friends, too.

Instead of pushing for people to help Afghanistan and offer troops, Afghanistan could end up being the poor girl at the prom who just won the lottery. And we all know where most lottery winners end up.

Don’t look now but our relationship with the Karzai gov. just changed and for all we’ve done in that country I’m hearing a tune with the words what have you done for me lately ringing in my ears.

This post has been edited and updated.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The Substance Behind Sarah-mania

By on 13 June 2010

–bumped–

To white evangelical women, Sarah Palin is a modern-day prophet, preaching God, flag, and family—while remaking the religious right in her own image. [...] Palin shows them a path through this thicket of contradictions. “Within these circles, there is very much an ideal Christian woman model,” explains Griffith. “It’s an image that blends this kind of submissive, pretty, aw-shucks demeanor with a fiery power, a spiritual warfare.” Palin may say she’s a pugnacious jock primed to take on the big boys, but her family, beauty-queen figure, and glossy hair are her calling cards. – Saint Sarah

America, meet the 21st century Jerry Falwell – Phyllis Schlafley and the heroine of the religious right. America’s anti-feminist “Queen Esther.”



…and so it begins. The legitimization of anti-feminism.

As with all things Jon Meacham, Newsweek remains moored in the 20th century. The article by Lisa Miller, though well written, also doesn’t address “what Sarah Palin’s appeal to conservative Christian women says about feminism.” I guess it’s a deduce for yourself exercise. But as is Newsweek’s usual angle with Palin, it’s all about trying to keep the magazine from getting out of Meacham’s reach.

It’s always about the money Sarah brings in. There’s a moral in there somewhere and a warning for Democrats.

I have not been one of Palin’s “leftist critics” who “shred” Palin’s views or disrespect her power and influence. I doubt there is another politician who could attract 10,000 people to Searchlight, NV, which I wrote about when it happened. I have also agreed with her (ack, the horror!) on a few occasions, come to her defense at other times (taking hits for it when I do), while often disagreeing with her on policy on the merits and proving the case. And her “mama grizzly” cry is fantastic marketing. It’s just not a feminist cry. Anti-feminism, yes.

Palin knows it, so she crafted the perfect back story narrative to make her an every woman, who when faced with bad news turns human, blowing away the divide between left and right, except for the perennial political haters.

Palin has already overshared: nothing makes a person, let alone a politician, appear more vulnerable, more ordinary, and more unambiguously female than a scene in a bathroom where she pees on a stick. But then she defies a generation of pro-life activists who preached that the life of the fetus is sacred, no matter what an individual woman wants. For a split second, Palin—already at the limits of her time and energy—stops to consider the chaos another baby will create in her life. These are really less than ideal circumstances, she thinks. And then the inconceivable. I’m out of town. No one knows I’m pregnant. No one would ever have to know. Any woman who has faced a pregnancy test with hope or with dread can picture the governor sitting there, alone with her dilemma, certain that her future will change. We know, of course, how the story ends. Trig, diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome, was born just months before his mother’s vice presidential run.

Sister, I’ve been there.

What I don’t quite get is why the right would want to make the case for feminism given their views.

The women who follow Palin will fight against Roe—and support adoption and prenatal health clinics—but they aren’t generally focused on birth control, sex education, or gender discrimination. They shrug at the agonies of the overeducated moms who feel forced to choose between work and family (no one had to do that on the farm), and they refute the idea that to succeed in the world a woman must look and act like a man. (“That Supreme Court nominee—I can’t relate to her at all,” Ruthie McIntosh, one of those who jumped to her feet at the Palin breakfast in Washington last month, told me.) These Christians seek a power that allows them to formally acquiesce to male authority and conservative theology, even as they assume increasingly visible roles in their families, their churches, their communities, and the world.

A point of order here. I have never witnessed or read anything about Sarah Palin formerly or otherwise acquiescing to Todd Palin in any respect, including financially. Ladies, you have a disconnect.

Nikki, Carly, Meg and Sharon don’t seem to need feminism, even after Sarah went to the Susan B. Anthony list breakfast to proclaim “a new conservative feminism,” which is laughable on its face. They could make a case for anti-feminism on the merits of their philosophy. That feminism hasn’t made women happy; that women define for themselves what it means; that motherhood is a reality when you make the choice to have sex outside wedlock; and when in wedlock it’s part of a woman’s biological fate, which all women should embrace, because giving birth is a gift from God and a woman’s duty.

Now, I don’t agree with much of what’s espoused there, but for a woman of the right why isn’t anti-feminism the field on which they want to play?

But there is something akin to pulling your punches when the right tries to make a case that conservative views can ever align with feminism. They won’t simply come out and say that the right supports the anti-feminist model for women, because they cannot adhere to the bottom line tenet of feminism on which there can be no compromise: full individual rights and freedoms for women. The one thing the right still hasn’t done is take on feminism directly, because they obviously want to soften the edges of what they are advocating, which is to “formally acquiesce to male authority” and less than full individual rights for women, which in the 21st century is a non-starter in the long run.

Now, I could join with the conservative right IF they were willing to respect women’s individual rights and also come onto the playing field of the reproductive health care battle so that we could finally join together to stop abortions through sexual education, including at the federal and state levels, advocating condom use, but also RU468 and the Morning After pill, as well as abstinence. I’ll join any conservative on that field, but all options for stopping unwanted pregnancies must be on the table. Sarah Palin would truly prove herself a leader if she could walk on to the stage and join hands with people like me on this platform. Fat chance.

As for Newsweek’s language, Newsmax might as well buy them, because their language is similar.

“Pro-woman rallying cry”?

Only if you’re someone who believes full individual rights don’t belong to women.

“Pro-life” once again being used instead of understanding the pro selective life foundation of the anti-feminist conservative movement. Though neutral territory is even better, pitting abortion rights advocate v. abortion rights opponent, as NPR and others have finally started to do.

Feminism is many things, as I’ve been writing for almost 17 years, but it starts with one unconditional tenet. Do you believe that women should have the very same individual rights and full freedoms as men? If you do not you cannot be a feminist.

As for “Saint Sarah,” I’ve seen the pedestal and it’s nothing to covet.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Iran’s Green Movement, and the Murder of Neda

By on 13 June 2010

Iran’s Green Movement is one year old this Sunday, the anniversary of its first massive demonstrations in the streets of Tehran. Greeted with great hope in much of the world, a year later it’s weaker, the country is more repressive, and its hardliners are in a far stronger position — and some of their success can be credited to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sanctions hawks in the Obama administration. [...] Above all, the ayatollahs benefited from Israeli intransigence and American hypocrisy on nuclear disarmament in the Middle East. – Prof. Juan Cole


It’s been a long year for Iran, but also for the Middle East. Since Pres. Obama’s important Cairo speech we’ve gone nowhere slowly.

Who can’t remember what happened this time last year?

Than came Neda’s murdered on the street.

No one knows what will come from harder sanctions and a tougher stance towards Iran. It’s clear the Iranian people will not benefit. Only the hardliners come out on top.

Not even our best and brightest have any answers, except to keep doing what’s not worked before.

[...] Iran’s case against Israel was bolstered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s continued enthusiasm for the Gaza blockade, and by Tel Aviv’s recent arrogant dismissal of a conference of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories, which called on Israel to join a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Nor has President Obama’s push for stronger sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council hurt them. And then, on Memorial Day in the United States, Israel’s Likud government handed Tehran its greatest recent propaganda victory by sending its commandos against a peace flotilla in international waters and so landing its men, guns blazing, on the deck of the USS Sanctions. …

[...] A year later, it’s clear that the hardliners have won decisively through massive repression, deploying basij armed with clubs on motorcycles to curb crowds, jailing thousands of protesters, and torturing and executing some of them. The main arrow in the opposition’s quiver was flashmobs, relatively spontaneous mass urban demonstrations orchestrated through Twitter, cell phones, and Facebook. The regime gradually learned how to repress this tactic through the careful jamming of electronic media and domestic surveillance. (Apparently the Revolutionary Guards now even have a Facebook Espionage Division.) While the opposition can hope to keep itself alive as an underground civil rights movement, for the moment its chances for overt political change appear slim. (Prof. Juan Cole)


TM NOTE: This documentary is an exception to my rule of insisting entities pay for advertising if they want attention on this site for their products. Advertising and contributions from people who support the work I do pay for this site. But Neda’s murder is beyond normal business practice rules. It’s a rare exception.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Sunday Morning News Round-Up

By on 13 June 2010

President Obama on Monday and Tuesday will visit the Gulf states affected by the oil spill. He’ll address the nation on Tuesday night from the White House on the next steps in responding to the environmental catastrophe, his senior adviser said Sunday. – CNN

Some coffee with your news?

Good morning!

Important factoid of the day: On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona which held that criminal suspects had to be informed of their constitutional right to speak with an attorney and to remain silent before being questioned by police.

Here’s a round-up of some of the major stories bouncing around the airwaves and internet:

~ Some thought that President Obama would be more protective of government whistleblowers than his predecessor. Not. He’s gone after them with a vengeance.

~ In an opinion piece that I read about five times to determine if it was satire, two legal bloggers argue that Clarence Thomas would be a great GOP candidate for 2012. Words escape me.

~ A Roman Catholic priest in Colombia becomes a target for exposing the horrific human rights abuses of the government and security forces. The U.S. also has reason to possibly fear these revelations as it seems the U.S. is viewed by many there as having been knee-deep in the abuses perpetrated by the Colombian security forces.

~ Abby Sunderland, the 16 year-old who became stranded in the Indian Ocean while attempting to complete a solo sail around the world, was rescued by a fishing vessel on Friday. The whole incident has created a sometimes heated public debate over the wisdom of letting teenagers take part in extremely dangerous activities. And this incident comes on the heels of 13 year-old Jordan Romero being the youngest person to climb Mt. Everest in May.

~According to Haaretz today, Benjamin Netanyahu has updated President Obama on the selection of former Israeli Supreme Court justice Yaakov Tirkel to head a commission of inquiry into the flotilla raid.

~ Speaking of Israel, Poland has arrested an alleged Mossad agent involved the forging of passports in the assassination of the Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai and now the extradition battle begins.

~ On Friday Pope Benedict XVI begged for forgiveness for the sexual abuse scandal involving Roman Catholic priests but according to many, that still isn’t enough particularly given his own (alleged) personal role in the scandal prior to becoming Pontiff.

~ McClatchy is really doing a fantastic job journalistically of covering just about everything- from domestic issues to foreign policy. They seem to be doing something very few journalists at the NYT and WaPo do anymore- actual investigative journalism or in the alternative, simply asking tough questions of those in power. Yesterday they had a front page story about how President Obama, in deciding several months ago to expand offshore oil drilling, failed to essentially do the governmental equivalent of due diligence which might have prevented a catastrophic oil spill like the one we are dealing with now. It’s a damning story.

~ Speaking of BP, in case you missed this story from last week, the oil spill response plan BP submitted in 2009 contained numerous glaring omissions and in some cases, outright nonsense. For example, the wildlife expert that they said they would rely on in the case of a major oil spill had been dead for 4 years prior to the publication of the report.

~ Flash floods have hit Arkansas and tragically, the death toll continues to rise.

~ Joran van der Sloot was charged with murder and robbery and taken to one of Peru’s most notorious prisons, Castro Castro. Van der Sloot is charged with the murder of the 21 year-old student Stephany Flores and he is the prime suspect in the disappearance/likely murder of Natalee Holloway. Get this- Van der Sloot requested he get his own cell at the prison because he feared for his life, and they AGREED! Apparently, prisons in Peru are living hell and they make US prisons look like Club Med. Cells can have as many as 50 people in them, no beds , etc.

~HA! It’s a draw between the U.S. and England in the first round of play. Go Yanks! In other play, South Korea beat Greece and Argentina beat Nigeria.

~ Is infighting tearing apart the tea party movement?

~ Obama is pleading for Congress to release billions in funds for states to prevent massive layoffs and cuts, but Congressional Democrats have “spending fatigue.”

~ Chris Cillizza over at the WaPo doesn’t seem to “get” the significance of labor’s backing of Blanche Lincoln’s opponent, Bill Halter, in the Arkansas primary and instead argues that labor unions were the biggest losers of the past week. Now, I could be wrong, but labor sent a message, loud and clear, and if the Democrats don’t hear it, they could end up being 2012’s biggest losers.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

The Zen of Nature

By on 12 June 2010



A very special part of the Great Marsh in Mason Neck.

These places are my church.


*Mason Neck is not part of Alexandria, which is what I had written above, but is now corrected. Still getting the cities down in my new neighborhood. Only seeing Mason Neck is believing.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Schumer: Strangling Palestinians Economically ‘Makes Sense’

By on 11 June 2010

Sen. Chuck Schumer obviously doesn’t know recent history. It was Pres. George W. Bush who pushed the Palestinians to vote before they were ready, thus delivering Hamas. Even Liz Cheney got that much right.

It was bad enough when Schumer slammed Pres. Obama on his Middle East policy. But on this subject, it’s hard to believe he could be so brazen, but that’s politics today on the Middle East. Think Progress has the transcript:

SCHUMER: The Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land — this is Palestinian thinking [...] They don’t believe in the Torah, in David [...] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose — obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel — but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When there’s total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, they’re going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.

This is your Democratic Party hierarchy, folks. Chuck Schumer, one of the people who also stuck his fingers in labors’ eye after Tuesday’s election results of Blanche Lincoln by saying: “Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other.” Now he wades into Middle East policy again.

Who does he think he is? Pres. Obama doesn’t need this right now.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Crist Vetoes Ultrasound Abortion Bill

By on 11 June 2010

This is what I’ve been waiting to see from Charlie Crist. News out of Florida today:

As he positions himself to the center in the U.S. Senate race, Gov. Charlie Crist on Friday vetoed a measure requiring most women to pay for an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus before they can have an abortion.

“This bill places an inappropriate burden on woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy,” Crist said in his veto message.

Way to go, Charlie.

This is important, because around the country states are encroaching on women’s rights, which Center for American Progress runs down in a great “abortion bills by the numbers” piece. How are they doing it? By passing mini Stupak amendments.

In addition to the insurance restrictions, abortion opponents are also using their newfound leverage to advance many of their old ideas—such as requiring ultrasounds before an abortion—and to push through a few novel ones, as well.

Here are the high—or should we say low—lights:

23: The number of provisions that have passed in the nine states that have enacted new abortion-related restrictions so far this year—Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

14: The number of states that have introduced laws this year that ban or limit abortion coverage in private insurance plans—either those purchased in the new health exchanges, in private markets outside of those exchanges, in government employee plans, or some combination thereof. So far, Arizona, Mississippi, and Tennessee have enacted such bills.

18: The number of states that have introduced legislation this year that requires abortion providers to offer their patients an ultrasound. Half of these bills mandate that the provider perform the ultrasound, regardless of whether the woman wants one, and a few go so far as to require the provider to show and/or describe the image to the woman. None of these bills provide state funding to cover the extra cost of the ultrasound. So far, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia have enacted ultrasound bills.*

14: The number of states that have introduced legislation or ballot initiatives this year to amend the state constitution to establish that legal personhood begins at conception, which would limit access to abortion, contraception, fertility treatments, and other medical services.

9: The number of states that have introduced bills this year that would criminalize abortions done purportedly because of the sex or race of the fetus.* Only Oklahoma’s bill has thus far become law.

9: The number of states that have introduced Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws this year that impose burdensome and medically unnecessary requirements on abortion clinics that are much more rigorous than the requirements imposed on other outpatient medical practices.*

8: The number of bills that Oklahoma passed this year. The governor signed bills outlawing “sex-selective” abortion; allowing employees to refuse to participate in abortions, fetal transplants, procedures involving embryos, and euthanasia; requiring clinics to post signs saying that women cannot be forced to have abortions; and increasing restrictions on RU-486, also known as the “abortion pill.” The governor vetoed an insurance coverage ban, mandatory ultrasounds with a detailed description of the fetus, a 38-question survey about each abortion procedure, and immunity for doctors who omit or provide inaccurate information to women carrying fetuses with abnormalities. The legislature successfully overrode all the vetoes except the insurance ban. The ultrasound law is not in effect yet, pending a court challenge.

2: The number of bills introduced this year that ban abortion before viability. Nebraska banned abortion for almost any reason after 20 weeks gestation based on the unsubstantiated and highly contested claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point. This law is clearly unconstitutional under current precedent and was passed in order to challenge Roe v. Wade. South Carolina introduced similar legislation but did not vote on it.*

1: The number of laws enacted this year (in Utah) that define criminal homicide to include a “knowing” act by a pregnant woman that causes a miscarriage or stillbirth. This bill is so broad that it could apply to a woman who smokes cigarettes or takes prescription medication.

While state legislators have been busy making abortion almost impossible to obtain for an untold number of women, they have done little to provide women with the support they need to carry their pregnancies to term, have childbirth options available to them, and raise the children they have.

Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party helped make Bart Stupak a household name.  This is what they’ve wrought.

Some naive women think our individual freedoms are set in stone.  These views are as uninformed as they are dangerous.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

If Dems Lose House, Can Special Counsel be Far Away?

By on 11 June 2010

Let’s just say it and get it out of the way. The lunatic right wants to take back the House in 2010 so they can begin an investigation that they hope will end in an impeachment trial against Pres. Obama. It’s not rocket science, because this is the politics Republicans practice.

The insidious, swiftboating campaign against Pres. Obama continues, as one of the unhinged fringe (yes, he was a Clinton supporter who went for McCain) steps forward to make the most outrageous claim yet. World Net Daily jumped in to pick the fiction up and keep the birther storyline going

…and before the emails start flowing, anyone suggesting that voting McCain-Palin made any sense at all on policy is simply fact challenged, regardless of the reality and tragedy that Pres. Obama’s “drill, baby, drill” energy policy is exactly the same as Palin’s and the Republican right.

From WND:

A college instructor who worked as a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, now teaches English at Western Kentucky University.

“There is no birth certificate,” said Tim Adams, a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. “It’s like an open secret. There isn’t one. Everyone in the government there knows this.”

I know, it’s preposterous to think about an independent counsel and impeachment trial against Obama, right? But Republicans aren’t like Democrats; they fight to the political death of their opponent, even when it’s one of their own, like what happened when they tried it against Nikki Haley in South Carolina. It is a tenet of the Republican Party playbook. They hunted Bill Clinton before he won the presidency, compliments of Lee Atwater politics. There is no depth to which they will not stoop.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Remember When They Did This to Hillary?

By on 11 June 2010

“…The only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism.” – Tina Brown

It’s cleavage Friday! Again. This time because Sarah Palin is the target, not Hillary. Let me explain…. Then we’ll get to Tina Brown’s blast against Tuesday’s ladies’ night winners.

This was a regular feature back when Hillary was running for president, inaugurated because of a July 2007 C-SPAN cleavage column by Robin Givhan which was a turning point in my relationship with Clinton. When I began shifting away from being a primary agnostic. It was also beginning of the ramp up of an assault on Clinton that didn’t stop until the primaries were over. Clinton knew what it was and sent out a fundraising letter on it. Sarah should do the same. After Givhan’s cleavage column, “cleavage Fridays” became a regular de-stressing event around here.

So, Sarah, Hillary (and many of us) can feel your frustration.

It hardly matters if this cleavage kerfuffle about Sarah has any factual basis. It’s simply nobody’s business and if it wasn’t for Sarah’s incredible popularity and power no one would be noticing. Obviously, the attack on Sarah is also a lot different. It’s interesting that it’s women that are doing the attacking, just like what happened to Hillary, at least at the beginning; though no one will ever have to endure what Hillary went through again. But I’m having none of it except to say, if you’ve got ‘em and know how to flaunt ‘em, then bring out those bad girls, ladies. Don’t let the political peanut gallery make you think twice.

As for Tina Brown’s charge that the winners on Tuesday are a “blow to feminism,” well, you have to be a feminist before that could be true. Any woman not supporting women’s individual freedoms is not a feminist. I’ve been writing this long before other websites and newspapers started picking this theme up. Sarah Palin and her “mama grizzlies,” including the talented women who won Tuesday night are professional women with a lot to say, but they are not feminists.

The reality and point Ms. Brown doesn’t deal with is that their rise is because they unapologetically defend their views and never and I mean never sell them out. That’s why they’re rising.

Unlike many progressives, especially those in Congress today, the women who are supposed to stand up for women’s individual freedoms have instead, for instance, made it more difficult for women in the health care bill. Instead of a star female standing up for women during the health care debate, we had Speaker Pelosi making back room deals with the help of Catholic bishop representatives and Bart Stupak to sell us out. Remember the House “pro choice progressive caucus” and how they fell silent when Stupak was rising? That would never happen with Sarah Palin and the conservative women who won on Tuesday. Though I will say this latest news on behalf of military women is a sign that someone gets it.

So, though I appreciate Tina Brown’s stance, it only skims the problem that progressive women have today. The first being that the women on the right will not be silenced. While progressive women in Congress are willing to compromise on the most fundamental woman’s right, individual freedom.

In light of this, a discussion about who’s a feminist and who isn’t hardly matters, because the women who actually support women’s individual freedoms won’t stand up for them.

No progressive Congressman or woman is addressing the ultrasound bills popping up in the states across this country, which is a direct assault on women’s individual freedoms and privacy. Reproductive freedom is the basic tenet of feminism, so anyone demanding a woman get an ultrasound, because a state thinks she’s too stupid when she makes a private decision about her life, doesn’t get it. You can’t be a feminist, then demand to interject the state in a private decision of individual freedom. But nice try, Tina. At least you stood up.

The conservative women who won on Tuesday may be smart, capable, business women (though this has minuses to match pluses), politicians and legislators who know their stuff, but they are not feminists. They are new breed of conservative anti-feminists who are rising, because even though their message is against women’s individual freedoms, they are strong-willed women who know what they want and are articulating it, because strong and wrong always beats weak and right.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Dead Birds on the White House Lawn

By on 10 June 2010

cross-posted on Huffington Post
–bumped–

“If you have 1,000 dead birds that you’ve collected, you have 10,000 that have died and sunk off shore. … There’s a massive bird kill, sea turtles, porpoises that haven’t even been calculated, so this thing is enormously impactful and devastating.” – Rick Steiner, Marine Conservationist (on “Countdown”)

How can anything live in this water? Nothing can. That’s what is left when you shut down all the noise, PR buzz, and White House spin. The only other thing left in the open is that a Democratic administration let it happen.

Ronald Reagan had James Watt at Interior, and Barack Obama has Ken Salazar. So at least it now makes sense why candidate Obama invoked the environmentally disastrous presidency of Reagan. Meanwhile, the president outsources his job of leadership thinking that because he wasn’t the one at the helm of the agency responsible for stopping the horror before it happened, or in charge of the ultimately foreseeable catastrophe management, he won’t get touched. It’s how teflon presidencies are made.

BP is the last oil company on Earth that Salazar and MMS should have allowed to regulate itself. The firm is implicated in each of the worst oil disasters in American history, dating back to the Exxon Valdez in 1989. At the time, BP directed the industry consortium that bungled the cleanup response to Valdez during the fateful early hours of the spill, when the worst of the damage occurred. Vital equipment was buried under snow, no cleanup ship was standing by and no containment barge was available to collect skimmed oil. Exxon, quickly recognizing what still seems to elude the Obama administration, quickly shunted BP aside and took control of the spill. The Spill, the Scandal and the President – Rolling Stone magazine

That’s just the tip of Tim Dickinson’s devastating Rolling Stone investigation.

I have been railing about BP being left in charge for several weeks. By talking and listening to oil experts it was obvious that no one knew what they were doing or worse, they knew what was happening and didn’t want to let the public in. I have been saying for several weeks that BP should never have been left on point. Rolling Stone confirms what I’d learned and had been saying all along, while some people think it’s more important to play partisan politics or appease their audiences than state the facts. Truth has only one side and it’s transparent. Folks, we are drowning together and no one wants to admit the crude is up to our necks.

It’s tempting to believe that the Gulf spill, like so many disasters inherited by Obama, was the fault of the Texas oilman who preceded him in office. But, though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill. [...] People are being really circumspect, not pointing the finger at Salazar and Obama,” says Rep. Raul Grijalva, who oversees the Interior Department as chair of the House subcommittee on public lands. “But the troublesome point is, the administration knew that it had this rot in the middle of the process on offshore drilling – yet it empowered an already discredited, disgraced agency to essentially be in charge.” – The Spill, the Scandal and the President – Rolling Stone magazine

This environmental 9/11 lies at Pres. Obama’s feet and it doesn’t matter how hard he tried to distance himself. His presidency is now oil slicked.

On the campaign trail, Obama had stressed that offshore drilling “will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.” But once in office, he bowed to the politics of “drill, baby, drill.” [...] Undeterred, Obama and Salazar appeared together at Andrews Air Force Base on March 31st to introduce the plan. The stagecraft was pure Rove in its technicolor militaristic patriotism. The president’s podium was set up in front of the cockpit of an F-18, flanked by a massive American flag.

You know that Jon Stewart bit where he made fun of Pres. Obama doing all those sports events while oil gushed into the Gulf?

The president himself was occupied elsewhere. After returning from his vacation, Obama spent Monday, April 26th palling around with Derek Jeter and the New York Yankees, congratulating them on their World Series victory. He later took time to chat with the president of Honduras. When he put in a call to Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, it was to talk about tornadoes that had caused damage in that state, with only a brief mention of the oil spill. On Tuesday the 27th, Obama visited a wind-turbine plant in Iowa. Wednesday the 28th, he toured a biofuels refinery in Missouri and talked up financial reform in Quincy, Illinois. He didn’t mention the oil spill or the Gulf.

Pres. Obama doesn’t own this catastrophe alone, but he will become captive of it as more and more information about the Administration’s culpability, but also after their environmental nonchalance surfaces. It will be like a giant dead bird landing on the White House portico.

The arrogance of the Democratic Party and the gullibility of voters to trust a political party who has good environmental slogans, but never delivers, is now landing with the lapping sound of ocean hitting sand with a slap, because it’s not water but “snot.” Watch the video and you’ll understand.

The American Gulf Coast that we once knew is gone for the foreseeable future. It is very likely never to return the same.

There’s now a push to get tourism down to the Gulf. “Morning Joe” will be down in Florida later this week. There are some places you can enjoy, I’m sure, but they won’t last long, with Louisiana already in the thick of destruction.

Meanwhile, we have Sen. Mary Landrieu, Gov. Jindal and many others squealing that offshore drilling must begin again because the job and economic loss will be even greater if it doesn’t. That there isn’t an emergency job task force already in action for the Gulf is stunning political incompetence. Because once people understand the utter dismantling of the Gulf ecosystem, I’m not sure anyone will want to see their own state handed over to corporate oil marauders under an Administration that has no energy policy and the social conscience of Bush-Cheney.

The BP blowout and its aftermath is as bad as it gets. Pres. Obama’s role in it matches it. The result is an environmental, habitat and ecological holocaust.

Obama’s first term legacy is set unless a miracle happens.

Pelican rookeries are fouled, their eggs and nests soaked in oil.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Leo Gerard: Obama Can’t Get Re-Elected Without Labor

By on 10 June 2010

“If I sound angry it’s because I am.”

United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard unloaded on the Ed Schultz show today.

He was lit up about the comments we’ve all been talking about, but also that anyone would challenge why labor went into Arkansas, which was to fight for the working families of the state, not just for Halter, though he did not add that, but it was obvious.

Let me also add that I learned about a woman named Joyce Elliott from Howie Klein who benefited from labor’s big push in Arkansas (as well as Clinton, and Obama postcards). Otherwise, she’d have been beat, putting another Blue Dog in line to win the seat. She’s evidently a real progressive, an African American and if she wins in November she’ll be the first African-American to win a federal election in Arkansas since 1870 and the first African-American woman to win a federal election in Arkansas ever. She’s running against Karl Rove’s poodle, the disgraced ex-U.S. Attorney Tim Griffith.

Gerard also said that he was “disappointed in Pres. Clinton” for saying unions were trying to “manipulate” people’s votes and cause fear, saying it was flatly “untrue.”

It was a tour de force performance that leaves no doubt that whatever Greg Sargent is talking about this morning does not apply to Mr. Gerard.

When Ed teed up the re-election question, Gerard didn’t hesitate.

Whatever jackass went to Ben Smith to dump on labor on Tuesday has created a firestorm that Pres. Obama does not need right now. Gerard said that if someone is going to make comments like that he or she should have the guts to put their name behind it.

Political hacks don’t have the spine of working people. We all know that by now.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Dear Britain

By on 10 June 2010

Senior Tories today warned Barack Obama to back off as billions of pounds were wiped off BP shares in the row over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Mayor Boris Johnson demanded an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling” after days of scathing criticism directed at BP by the President and other US politicians. Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit branded Mr Obama’s conduct “despicable”. And with the dispute threatening to escalate into a diplomatic row, Mr Johnson also appeared to suggest that David Cameron should step in to defend BP. – Boris Johnson tells Barack Obama: Stop bashing Britain

We love you. Really.

But “bashing Britain”? This is about BP, a corporate marauder. I was on the BBC several times last week and told the truth about the malfeasance that has now been widely reported. Anyone attempting to defend BP is standing on the corpses of dead wildlife, not to mention the ruined lives of Americans in the Gulf.

Have you not seen the pictures of the pelicans?

BP willingly put safety aside, which they’ve been doing habitually for years, and gambled with our Gulf coast.

They decimated an ecosystem along the Gulf and with it is going a way of life for thousands of Americans and their families. Our economy could be decimated by the unemployment boom in the Gulf Coast region.

We’re not mad at you. We hate BP.

You simply cannot expect us to give a rat’s rear end about stock prices, dividends and all things BP when a way of American life is dying because of BP’s callous disregard for safety, using the U.S. environment as their corporate killing fields.

I know you all are an unemotional, pragmatic bunch, but get a heart.

Love, America.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }