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 | August, 2010

Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel Attacking Iran

By on 11 August 2010

The Netanyahu government is already intensifying its analytic efforts not just on Iran, but on a subject many Israelis have difficulty understanding: President Obama. The Israelis are struggling to answer what is for them the most pressing question: are there any circumstances under which President Obama would deploy force to stop Iran from going nuclear? Everything depends on the answer. – Jeffrey Goldberg

The whole premise begins on the foundation that PM Netanyahu believes Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the world’s problem. The weakness of this is that while that is so, there is not a consensus that Iran poses an existential threat to world peace. It’s over that divide the Israeli government and the U.S. stand, which makes Ehud Barak’s battle plan plausible. But Jeffrey Goldberg’s article should be seen as nothing less than Israel’s warning to the world, though I’ll leave you to decide how much stenography versus baiting versus fearmonger is involved in Mr. Goldberg’s intense rhetorical napalm*. “If (Pres. Obama) is a J Street Jew, we are in trouble,” doesn’t exactly fold into my brain as something simply added for color.

Israel won’t need or ask for our permission nor should they, besides, after Goldberg’s article it’s not like the possibilities haven’t been publicized. PM Netanyahu knows that no matter what Pres. Obama says he will not strike Iran. “All options on the table” means squat as things stand today for the U.S. in the region, as not only are our hands overflowing, but cramping from too much juggling.

From Goldberg’s piece:

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

Steve Clemons has dissected Goldberg’s piece, but it comes with the background of Steve’s latest writing that focuses solely on explaining why Obama will not choose to go to war with Iran, which I don’t think is in question and is not the issue at all. That said…

Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran. They argue self-interestedly that an aerial attack on a handful of Iranian facilities would not be as complicated or as messy as, say, invading Iraq. “This is not a discussion about the invasion of Iran,” one Arab foreign minister told me. “We are hoping for the pinpoint striking of several dangerous facilities. America could do this very easily.” (Jeffrey Goldberg)

The cold reality is that Israel’s national security issues have never been further apart than the U.S. It’s not about our friendship, which is not in doubt, but about strategic and practical benefits and risks considering our own role in the greater region today, but especially looking at our gargantuan commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will not end in the near future. But of course that doesn’t mean we won’t be drawn in.

But more importantly, Israel feels that Iran is a mortal threat to their sovereignty and very existence. The U.S. does not have the same fears and foreboding. It’s that simple a line, with nothing more important for PM Netanyahu than protecting Israel, which is the only job that matters.

Jordan’s King Abdullah warned of in 2009, that if there wasn’t a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians war would be the outcome. For the record, there isn’t anyone who can convince me Iran cares one whit about the Palestinians, no matter what is being pantomimed.

Goldberg outlines possible worldwide ramifications of an Israeli strike:

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

A couple of things. There is nothing that can “rupture relations” between Jerusalem and Washington considering domestic politics as Pres. Obama begins to run for re-election. Hate to be crass, but wake up and smell the coalition counters. American Jews, no matter what their ambivalence towards Israel, are very unlikely to stand on the side of the “bomber-boys.”

Additionally, say good-bye to the two-state solution forever, with Israel’s very existence put at peril. The “Zionist experiment” and Pres. Harry Truman’s risks finally proved a bridge too far in a hostile region where Israel stands alone. Think Humpty Dumpty and spilled yoke everywhere.

Mr. Netanyahu didn’t pick Avigdor Lieberman and his war council mistakenly. Israeli neoconservatives like PM Netanyahu think Israel stands at a crossroad anyway, so if Ehud Barak orders a strike against Iran it will be because Israel feels she has run out of options and has no choice. Whether that’s true or not, there will be very few political leaders in the U.S. who have the courage to argue it and PM Netanyahu knows it.

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” he said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.” Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and he fears that Israel’s status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison d’être of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.

PM Netanyahu feels like he’s got nothing left to lose. If you hear Janis Joplin singing you’re not alone.

“In Israel, we heard this as nine months from June—in other words, March of 2011,” one Israeli policy maker told me. “If we assume that nothing changes in these estimates, this means that we will have to begin thinking about our next step beginning at the turn of the year.”

I just wish everyone would quit equating John F. Kennedy with this situation, in whatever manner it’s being done to draw out the drama. There is no equivalency here and the drama is very clear. Israel’s position with Iran is not close to Kennedy’s with Cuba, and Ben-Gurion talking to Kennedy on qui pro quos is irrelevant to the situation, as is Jeffrey Goldberg ending his piece with the falsely ringing finale about what Pres. Obama does in this situation will or will not make him a “great president” in Israel’s eyes, which is not only a condescending coupling, but the mother of all traps for the United States.


TM Note: The term “rhetorical napalm” was written somewhere recently and I immediately thought of it in context with the Middle East. I’ve borrowed it here and will again, though I can’t remember who wrote it first, so this is the best I can do to give credit for the brilliant word coupling.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

2010: GOP Tea Party a Gift to Dems (and oh, that ‘Aqua Buddha’ guy)

By on 11 August 2010

–updated–

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, who have been starved for good news through much of 2010, finally received a generous helping Tuesday night. Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing up in polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election 12 weeks from now. – Primary night yields good news for President Obama and Democrats

Baseball, as metaphor today, with the Cards v. Cincy game a good backdrop, especially with WWE a winner last night, and gives you an idea of the atmosphere in the country politically as well. Democrats and the Republican Tea Party are in a brawl, which is a much tighter contest than anyone is spinning. Everyone hates each other and that goes well beyond any anti-incumbent spin that doesn’t tell the story at all.

General discontent revs up everyone’s motor when nobody likes the infrastructure set up that drives national politics.

In Colorado, Republicans fielded not only a weak candidate against Sen. Bennet, but the entire state ticket on the right reveals signs of Tea Party craziness. Same goes for Nevada, where Republicans took a likely pickup in Harry Reid’s seat and blew it by nominating Sharon Angle, one of the wackiest candidates in the country. That is until you get to Rand Paul, with the latest story on him from GQ magazine a laugh riot, unless of course you’re the woman who Paul and his friends, in a blinding pot haze, allegedly blindfolded, tied up and stuffed in a car, then later made to worship at the altar of “Aqua Buddha”:

The strangest episode of Paul’s time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul’s teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, “He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They’d been smoking pot.” After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”

Nearly 30 years later, the woman is still trying to make sense of that afternoon. “They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke.” She hadn’t actually realized that Paul wound up leaving Baylor early. “I just know I never saw Randy after that—for understandable reasons, I think.”

The whole article is priceless in that Rand Paul Is Even Crazier Than We Thought sort of way. Can’t Democrats mine this for negative ads to help out Jack Conway? To add in further developments, the woman in question has now issued one hell of a “clarification,” which puts Esquire in quite a position.

If you throw in Dick Armey’s view on Social Security, which is basically to dismantle FDR’s safety net so seniors are put at risk, well, the Tea Party crew is going to make sure even in low enthusiasm that Democrats have a real chance to keep their majorities.

Of course, just like the Cards v. Cincy game, when antipathy and tempers are high nothing is certain, except that none of these factions are friends.

Yet the Democrats should feel good about things right now. In the game of my guy is bad, but the other guy is worse, the Republican Tea Party is serving up a lot of losers. Seriously, when Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who won her primary last night in Connecticut, a woman who has been seen kicking people in crotches is being touted as someone who represents the best of what the right has got to offer, if Democrats can get their act together they just might hold on to the majority.

Though let’s be serious, considering what Pres. Obama and the Democrats have done with that majority the only outcome if Dems prevail is at least the country didn’t send a bunch of Sharon Angles to Congress. Meanwhile, Chris Bowers rebuts recent polling of Democratic enthusiasm for Obama, which I’ll leave you to dissect yourself.

The downer in the picture looking to 2012 is that Pres. Obama has apparently lost the Walter Cronkite of Spanish media, Jorge Ramos. It’s a problem depending on what Republicans offer up, which right now is simply tinkering with the 14th Amendment, which once again gives Democrats and Pres. Obama a way to stay in power.

All this being true, I remain one of the doubters that progressives and liberals will be excited about 2010, which I believe is true of 2012 too, until and unless Pres. Obama and the Democrats do something they haven’t done yet, which is to act like Democrats, instead of dragging the Left to the right.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Roberts Gibbs Reveals Nixonian Paranoia

By on 10 August 2010

–bumped–

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.” The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. . . . – White House unloads anger over criticism from ‘professional left’

If you want to know how certain the White House is that Democratic voters will come home in 2012, which is what I’ve been writing for months, the interview with Mr. Gibbs is all you need. This poll proves it. The Obama White House isn’t worried about squat.

This “inartful” drivel from Robert Gibbs, who is speaking for Pres. Obama and his administration, is positively Nixonian in its paranoia. Greenwald adds that it comes with a side of “Sean Hannity/Sarah Palin caricature of The Far Left,” which is absolutely correct. All of this coming from Obama central, representing a man who came in with the press at his feet and the political winds at his back, but has massively blown it and not because of anything coming from the “professional left.”

I had no clue that the reason I’ve been so disgruntled with Pres. Obama’s compromising, sniveling, cave-in on health care, forcing a mandate down our throats without a public option, even though he had a Democratic majority in Congress, but also the people behind him, while selling out women’s individual freedoms to Bart Stupak and conservatism was because my meds were off. I guess Obama caving on the Middle East and being tough on the Netanyahu gov., while also missing the signals in Afghanistan on McChrystal’s career ending implosion, aren’t two good reasons to get tough on just what Obama’s actually doing through his foreign policy waffling, which now may even include Iraq.

Over the long term, strong Iraqi security forces will prevent interference from others from outside Iraq, he said. But in the meantime, he offered assurance of continued support from the 50,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after Sept. 1.

“We still have a significant presence here. And we will not allow undue malign influence on the Iraqi government as they attempt to form their government,” he said. “What we are trying to do is provide them the space and time for them to do that. And we will continue to do that post-1 September.”

Nothing to criticize here from Mr. anti Iraq war vote. Move along, whatever you’re thinking is just a figment of some fairy tale.

Who knew that Obama caving on DADT while offering up more word salads instead of actions, while good soldiers get fired for being who they are, while Prop 8 gets overturned but the White House continues to spout talking points the religious right would love isn’t an issue. That neither is Obama sucking up to Wall Street interminably. That “imprisoning people for life with no charges,” to quote Glenn Greenwald, as Pres. Obama moves forward with international assassination plots and the gods only know what else under the radar shouldn’t be confronted. That while completely botching the BP blowout management, which included actually knowing BP couldn’t be trusted but hoisting a ration of unadulterated crap on the American public doesn’t matter and that birds, animal and wildlife aren’t worth protecting. I also keep forgetting that all you movement progressives out there that are the reason he’s in office in the first place don’t matter either.

After the wholesale sell out of Democratic principles so Barack Obama can look “moderate,” while moving the Democratic Party to the right, to a bunch of right-wing Republicans who want to see the Democratic agenda the people approved when they elected Obama derailed, the President investigated, and hopefully impeached, so the right can get another notch on their belt to prove why people end up holding their noses to vote for Democrats in the first place, it’s nothing to—hey, but whatever.

The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. [...]

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama. Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

I’d really like to know how Gibbs thinks Obama would have been elected without the professional Left, including those in Washington, many of whom are still carrying his water, without any thanks, we now see. But I guess since OFA is half what it used to be if you can get a intraparty war going you might rev the suckers up yet again.

Ingrates. Entitled, arrogant ingrates, all.

But every time you read a story about the demoralized Left in the news, think of Robert Gibbs, who’s talking for Pres. Obama saying he’s upset that people are holding him accountable, because having been elected as The One he actually believed he was.

You know, in June, Kathleen Parker wrote a column about Obama maybe being our first female president “who makes Alan Alda look like Genghis Khan.” I now think she’s got something, however unintentionally and certainly not in the way she meant it. More like a petulant teenage girl in the throes of hormone explosion. They look great, can’t be trusted and think they’re entitled to be worshiped simply because of who they are.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Perfect Fit: Ground Zero Mosque and a Gay Bar

By on 10 August 2010



Now this is double your fun tolerance I can back. I’m just not sure if Mr. Foxman would dig it.

Republicans certainly won’t, considering the 2012ers are against the mosque and are all homophobic. Pres. Obama remains mute on the mosque, along with the other elite Democrats.

Meanwhile, Fox News’ guy Greg Gutfeld thinks he’s got the one thing that will freak the Ground Zero mosque contingent to the core. From his blog:

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

As for Gov. David Paterson, I have no idea what this man is thinking in jumping into the fray and offering state land no less. Does he plan to do this for every other religious group? Greg Sargent also gets it right when he mentions the difficulty in deciding just how to measure away from Ground Zero to be far enough away.

After Mayor Bloomberg’s stunningly powerful speech supporting Cordoba House, which didn’t offer any point of equivocation, Gov. Paterson should keep his nose out of it. He’s not helping anyone but Abe Foxman and his bomb throwers.

A mosque, with a gay bar nearby, tolerance that honors everything this country is supposed to stand for, but even in the 21st century does not.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Mort Zuckerman’s Rag Got All the Facts Wrong on First Lady Michelle Obama’s Trip

By on 10 August 2010

“Taylor, I never heard of you before. But you (sic) just one of the thousands of stupid elitist media whores out there, pimping for that fat Nazi bitch Michelle. Spare us already!” – Stan Lippmann (email from a reader)

Mort’s got some classy friends, doesn’t he?

When I posted about the New York Daily News hit piece on First Lady Michelle Obama I got quite a few emails, especially from Huffington Post. The one above is indicative of the hatred out there, but also what’s directed towards me from all sides, no matter what I write.

But as I wrote, what Zuckerman’s rag unload against the First Lady via a Republican operative, Andrea Tantaros, was not only wrong, but stunningly so. The emails from Obama haters prove that these people cannot be reached through details or the truth. Some more facts, beyond what I provided earlier, from Lynn Sweet.

[...] … First, some numbers. Mrs. Obama did not travel with 40 friends, a number used by some news outlets.

She vacationed with two women, one of them a longtime Chicago pal, Anita Blanchard, who is the obstetrician who delivered Sasha and Malia. Blanchard is married to Marty Nesbitt — President Obama’s buddy and the treasurer of Obama’s presidential campaign fund.

There was one other woman. Total: four daughters among the three women. They paid for their hotel rooms and other personal and travel expenses.

The trip involved six White House advance staffers and two East Wing staffers, deputy Chief of Staff Melissa Winter and Mrs. Obama’s personal assistant, Kristen Jarvis, according to Mrs. Obama’s spokeswoman Catherine McCormick Lelyveld.

Mrs. Obama does travel with significant security — and in a trip like this, three shifts of uniformed and plain-clothes agents and military personnel flew with her on a big Air Force 757. No matter where she goes — domestic or international — any first lady gets protection and she does not decide how many agents are needed.

So why did Mrs. Obama go to Spain at this time? She’s not tone-deaf politically. What was behind the “mother-daughter” vacation?

A White House source told me that Blanchard’s father passed away and Mrs. Obama was not able to make the funeral at the beginning of July. Blanchard had promised her daughter she would take her to Spain for her birthday. She asked Mrs. Obama and Sasha to come with. (Malia is at overnight camp.)

“She felt it was important as a dear friend to do this,” I was told. …

Hey Mort, you’re still a punk.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Sarah Palin Rolls Her Eyes When Woman Says She’s A Teacher

By on 09 August 2010

–updated–

Politico has the details, but around 1:10 in the video, when Sarah Palin asks the woman what she does, the woman says she’s a teacher. Mrs. Palin clearly rolls her eyes, then obviously grimaces while saying “Oh…” It’s clearly a derogatory reaction.

The teacher calls Palin a “celebrity” several times, with Sarah trying to make her case, but once she weighs in on what she thinks about the woman’s job as a teacher, it’s all over.

What does Sarah Palin have against teachers? This might sound like snark, but it isn’t. I truly have no idea why any politician or political spokesperson would role his or her eyes at hearing that’s someone’s job.

But that sigh of relief you just heard is from the Republican establishment who want as many of these YouTube moments in the can before the 2012 race begins in earnest.

UPDATE: The right is in a tizzy because the woman who says she’s a teacher sings harmony in a drag queen band, which has their heads exploding, but also is an abortion rights supporter, another point of implode. But is she a teacher? Well, some directors consider themselves teachers and act as such, so if the story at that link offers a point of possible proof that she is (h/t reader Coal Cracker in comments).

In the set up, Palin clearly falls for it by engaging the woman while the camera is rolling, something no one of Sarah Palin’s status and popularity should do if you don’t want to get caught in a trap. The complaints the woman is lodging go to Palin’s “celebrity,” but also that she abandoned Alaska, which certainly is walking Palin right into a buzz saw, with Palin doing exactly that, unfortunately. The woman in the video is now reportedly being identified by some as a “theater tech,” which doesn’t preclude being a teacher, but certainly doesn’t verify it either. As I said in the headline and the post, the woman said she was a teacher, though I couldn’t and didn’t vouch for her veracity. Sarah Palin clearly rolled her eyes when the woman said she was a teacher. Was it because Mrs. Palin thought the woman was lying, instead of showing disrespect for teachers? But as I wrote above, I truly didn’t know why anyone, especially someone like Palin, would show disrespect for teachers, so just maybe the eye roll is because Sarah smelled a rat. You be the judge. But I hope Sarah Palin learns from this episode, because engaging just anyone at anytime when a camera is rolling is a bad idea; with reaction shots, no matter the subject or what you think is happening, fraught with peril. Finally, let’s also not pretend that when Republicans hear the word “teacher” they don’t think union, which is yet another head exploding moment for the right.

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Joe Sestak Doubles Down on Bill Clinton

By on 09 August 2010




In his latest senatorial campaign email blast, Rep. Joe Sestak goes all in on former Pres. Bill Clinton and his record. In the version I received, he doesn’t mention Pres. Obama or the administration’s accomplishments. Sestak also slams the Bush record, while hanging it around Toomey’s neck, calling it the “Toomey-Bush period.”

An excerpt:

MEDIA, Pa — On the eve of President Clinton’s visit to Pennsylvania, a close look at Congressman Toomey’s choices and the Wall Street values that have led him to support the failed policies that have devastated Pennsylvania’s economy show that his mindset would hurt Pennsylvania families all over again given the opportunity.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, President Clinton’s fiscally responsible budgets and focus on tax breaks for working families created 87,000 new jobs per year in Pennsylvania over eight years.

President Bush’s fiscally irresponsible budgets and focus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans turned the largest budget surplus in history into massive, big government deficits. And during the entire Toomey-Bush period, Pennsylvania created a grand total of 67,000 jobs – fewer jobs for working families in eight years than President Clinton’s priorities produced in just one year. [...]

“We created more Pennsylvania jobs in one year under President Clinton’s fiscally responsible economic leadership than we did in eight years of Congressman Toomey and President Bush’s failed trickle-down ideology,” said U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak. “My 31 years in the Navy taught me that the military can keep us safe, but our strength as a nation comes from the strength of our working families. President Clinton understood that – and in the Senate, I will fight every day for practical policies that create jobs for Pennsylvania’s small businesses and working families.”

During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, jobs rose 11.2% in Pennsylvania. During the four Toomey-Bush years, that number rose less than 1%. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

“Congressman Sestak has a plan to get our economy moving again by investing in middle class families and Pennsylvania’s small businesses,” said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. “He believes we need to focus real engines of economic growth — small business and the middle class. It’s time to acknowledge that the Toomey-Bush economic agenda is a failure and set course on a sensible path to create jobs.”

Toomey/Bush vs. Sestak/Clinton Priorities – By the Numbers

Job Growth:

• During the Clinton Administration, the yearly job growth in Pennsylvania was more than five times what it was during the Toomey-Bush years. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

• During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, jobs rose 11.2 percent in Pennsylvania. During the four Toomey-Bush years, that number rose less than one percent. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

• The average yearly job growth during the Clinton Administration (86,961 a year) was more than during the entire Toomey-Bush period combined (66,856 total). [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

• The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. [The Washington Post, January 2009]

• In the six months after President Bush left office (from January – June 2009), the country lost 2,909,000 jobs. From January – June 2010, we added 868,000 jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

Deficits and Debt:

• Congressman Toomey voted for every Bush budget as a member of Congress. [Vote 198, 5/19/04; Vote 141, 4/11/03; Vote 79, 3/20/02; Vote 104, 5/9/01]

• Bush-Toomey budgets took our federal government from a $236 billion surplus to a $318 billion deficit. President Bush inherited a unified budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest surplus in American history. In 2005, when Congressman Toomey left Congress, the budget deficit reached $318 billion. [Office of Management and Budget]

• For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [CBPP, February 2010]

• The national debt increased by 86% under the Bush administration, from $5.7 trillion when he took office to $10.6 trillion when he left. [Treasury Department]

Fiscal Responsibility:

• “Pay as you go” (PAYGO) rules were originally established under the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act and extended in 1997 under President Clinton. An important tool for fiscally responsible federal budgeting, the PAYGO provisions require that both increases in mandatory spending and tax cuts be paid for before they are passed by Congress.

• Congressman Toomey voted four times against restoring PAYGO rules in 2004. [Vote 317, 6/25/04; Vote 314, 6/24/04; Vote 145, 5/5/04; Vote 97, 3/30/04]

…and on it goes.

Hey, it’s going to be a tough road for Sestak, so whatever works and it seems right now that’s former Pres. Bill Clinton and his record in the ’90s.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Palin’s Latest Tea Party Pick, Out of Obscurity

By on 09 August 2010

Well, one thing a candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin may get is a boost in fundraising. Politico is running a story on the Tea Party’s money troubles that is indicative of any candidates that step outside the system.



“There’s a bigger issue here,” said Erick Erickson, the founder of the influential conservative Red State blog, which is popular in tea party and new conservative circles. “And that is that there are a lot of people out there that, by and large, don’t really think that the tea party movement is going to be around much longer, and so why invest in a movement that is not going to be there much longer?”

As for Palin’s reason for endorsing the unknown Murphy in Maryland, perhaps Sarah saw in him a bit of her own up hill political battle when she ran her “clean-government platform” campaign against incumbent Republican Governor Frank Murkowski and beat him. Looks similar to me. But Maryland isn’t Alaska.

“What this campaign has always needed is a megaphone,” Murphy said, “and Sarah’s endorsement gave that to us.” [...] Privately, Ehrlich aides have said that getting shunned by Palin could help him in the general election. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 2 to 1 in Maryland, and some of the Democrats whom Ehrlich needs to draw to his side are hardly fans of Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race. – Palin endorsement lifts little-known candidate in Md.

In Republican Tea Party news beyond Palin, there’s a weird little story via Fox News that “Activists Say Tea Party Imposters Infiltrating Elections”. It rambles on and on about alleged “peculiar Tea Party happenings goes on and on.” The opening paragraph sniffs out “a Democratic operative appears closely tied to a slate of candidates,” a singular person in Florida who looks suspicious. The objective is as obvious as it is uproariously ridiculous. Democrats have their hands full looking towards November. Putting up fake candidates under the Tea Party isn’t one of them and certainly isn’t an organized effort.

Democrats aren’t worried about the Tea Party. That would be Republicans.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Your Sunday News Round-Up

By on 08 August 2010

Good morning! I’m getting a late start today, sorry ’bout that!

On the left is a picture of a British Tiny Owl battling a worm to feed to her baby owls. The owl wins, by the way, and if you are interested, here are more pictures of Momma Owl vs. The Worm and also the aftermath- taking the worm and feeding it to her really cute tiny baby owls. I have a thing for owls.

On this day in history, August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon announced he would resign due to the Watergate scandal.

Some links to go with your coffee/tea:

~Historian and author Tony Judt died on Friday of complications of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease) at the age of 62. His brilliance and refusal to be silenced by his critics will sorely be missed.

~Now that the oil well has apparently stopped gushing, the evidence-gathering stage of the criminal investigation will begin and guess who will be gathering some of the evidence? BP and Transocean! Of course, they’ve been handling, mismanaging and covering up the evidence all along- why do you think they dumped so much dispersant into the water?

~Apparently some in Israel think the Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding was an affront to Judaism. And then there is this, which is just a bridge too far.

~Elena Kagan was sworn in as the 112th Supreme Court Justice on Saturday.

~The U.S. seems to be making some slight diplomatic overtures to Iran. Is it me or does our policy seem a bit disjointed? I understand the whole “dual track” idea but it seems like domestic politics is undermining any constructive attempts at real diplomacy.

~The Russian government is being tested by a series of serious wildfires approximately 50 miles outside of Moscow and according to many Russians, the government response has been deplorable.

~Speaking of Russia, they are in a war of words with the U.S. over allegations of violating numerous older nuclear and chemical weapons treaties. The U.S. has alleged the same of Russia. Tit for tat.

~McClatchy has done more brilliant journalism- they’ve been studying the effects of the economic stimulus package in different parts of the U.S. in addition to tracking down where the money went, and why, and the results are surprising. Not in a good way.

~The Taliban have killed 10 members of a foreign medical team. It is believed that six of the people were Americans. Because the attacks took place in Badakhshan province in northern Afghanistan, there are growing concerns that the Taliban has extended its reach.

~Chris Dodd made a statement that could well serve as the campaign slogan (or epitaph) of the current Democratic Party- “What you don’t need to have is an eight-month battle for who the director or the head or chairperson of this new consumer financial protection bureau will be.” He’s referring, of course, to Elizabeth Warren. In other words, meaningful change is simply “not worth the fight” even though Warren could play a key role in helping to prevent the abusive practices which Wall Street reform supposedly sought to rectify. The question is, is Dodd speaking for Dodd or is he speaking for the administration? As an aside, it’s interesting that Obama thinks that progressives are frustrated with the “pace of change”- ie. it’s not happening fast enough. However this issue with whether or not Warren will head the CFPA is the perfect example of why Obama does not understand progressive anger- this is not about change “not happening fast enough” but rather “change not happening at all.”

~Today on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, he will apparently go into more detail as to why he returned the award and honorarium he received from the ADL.

~Representative Anthony Weiner, a man known for speaking his mind, and often very LOUDLY, is remaining rather coy over the “how dare a Mosque be built anywhere near the hallowed site of Ground Zero” controversy. You can read the letter here. If ‘brevity is the soul of wit’, then Weiner gets the prize. If anyone can decode that last paragraph, let me know. Contrast his statement with that of Jarrold Nadler, who takes a clear, unequivocal stand against religious intolerance.

~If you missed this earlier in the week, Glenn Greenwald has a great commentary about how the U.S. military/Defense Department continues to use the journalist embed process to propagandize about the war. Greenwald wrote the article in response to the news that Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings had his previous embed-approval reversed in the wake of the Stanley McChrystal article.

~A new, huge encrypted file has appeared on WikiLeaks with the tag “Insurance,” which some are saying could indicate that if the government tries to tamper with the site or go after people who work for it, WikiLeaks will release the Insurance files. In other words, WikiLeaks is sending a signal to the U.S. and other governments that they had better think twice before trying to bring down the site. I went to the website and could not find the encrypted file.

~Wall Street reform seems to have ignored two major players in the mortgage crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is kind of like performing surgery on a cancer patient and only removing half of the tumor. Some have opined that Congress is loathe to take on the issue because it would mean revealing their role in enabling Fannie and Freddie’s self-dealing and corporate shenanigans.

~You made it all the way to the end. This is for you.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Fareed Zakaria Returns ADL Award & Honorarium

By on 07 August 2010

[...] The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation. – Fareed Zakaria


Bill Maher’s “Religulous”

The ADL’s Abe Foxman responds to Zakaria (via Memeorandum) in what amounts to remarkable irony: ADL has and will continue to stand up for Muslims… I know, pretty stunning word salad considering Mr. Foxman’s revealing hypocrisy over Cordoba House.

Meanwhile, Foxman, who has now disgraced the ADL as well as its reputation, seems to be taking his talking points from Bushie Dan Senor, who said on “Morning Joe” yesterday that if those wanting to build the mosque really wanted one, they’d move it. Oh, and Senor and his buddies would help defray the costs and grease the wheels so they could slide through bureaucratic red tape. Aw, aren’t these Republicans sweet, the very definition of compassionate conservatism. You bow to our standards of religious intolerance and we’ll pat you on the head for caving to anti Muslim hate.

Foxman is “holding” Fareed Zakaria’s check and the award for him. Unless Foxman reverses himself, which isn’t bloody likely, I doubt Zakaria will accept it back.

Not too many people that would make such a stand these days. You sure aren’t seeing anything close coming from progressive or Democratic legislators, who are cowardly quiet on the whole Ground Zero mosque issue. No guts. But it does explain why we can’t get out of the hamster wheel Middle East policy of the past, because no one will stand up to the right, wherever it finds itself, which for Democrats where Israel is concerned is centered up Sen. Chuck Schumer’s posterior.

As for embedding Bill Maher’s “Religulous” (the movie in full), it seems fitting given the uproar over building a mosque near Ground Zero, a little philosophical humility injected into the debate about now is desperately needed.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Cross AIPAC at Your Peril

By on 07 August 2010

Right-wing Republicans have gone past the Who Is More Pro Israel? standard. They’re now into McCarthyism and anti-democratic swiftboating.

The Gaza blockade is wrong and any politician saying so out loud or in print through their signature is not only correct, but far more pro Israeli that Bill Kristol’s fearmongering pack. With Rep. Mike Pence saying Pres. Obama is anti Israel in front of every microphone shoved in his face, boy, 2012 is going to be really ugly.


via Huffington Post

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Howard Dean: HCR Mandate will be Gone by 2014

By on 06 August 2010

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

I tweeted Dean’s comment the second after he said it on “Daily Rundown,” which just posted the video above. It’s what I’ve written for many months. Without a public option the mandate is simply wrong; pushing people into a monopolized system that only benefits insurance companies ridiculous.

Huffington Post provides the transcript:

Dean: [T]he truth is the mandate’s not essential to the plan anyway. It never was essential to the plan. They did it in Massachusetts and had a mandate, but we have universal health care for kids in my state without a mandate.

Savanah Guthrie: How can you say that? the way it’s explained to us by the White House if you do anything about preexisting conditions, you got to get everybody into the game. Without the mandate, you can’t require insurance companies to stop prohibiting –
Dean: We did in my state. We did it 20 years ago in my state.

Chuck Todd: How did you do it?

Dean: We just said all comers will have to get insurance and you can’t charge — this is why our bill is so much better than what they passed — you can’t charge more than 20 percent above the basic rate; in the Senate it’s 300 percent, based on age. The fact of the matter is that I thought the president was right in the campaign. Academically you want a mandate. The American people aren’t going to put up with a mandate. I made this prediction before and I’m going to make it again: by the time this thing goes into effect in 2014, I think the mandate will be gone either through the courts or because it’s unpopular. You don’t need it. There will be two or three percent of the people who cheat. That is not enough to bring the system to a halt and people don’t like to be told what to do.

Todd: You expect them to drop the mandate?

Dean: Well, the courts may rule it unconstitutional. It has no effect on the bill.

Guthrie: You don’t think that unravels the whole bill?

Dean: Absolutely not. You do not — the only people that really benefit from the mandate are the insurance companies. I know from personal experience, 18 years ago we did this in my state and it still works just fine. We didn’t have big rate increases. We had a few fly by night insurance companies leave because we were so tough on them, but our insurance market works as well as anybody else’s.

Nixing the mandate couldn’t come soon enough.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Glenn Beck’s Racism: ‘It’s like the damned planet of the apes.’

By on 06 August 2010

No racism here, right all you Tea Party Republicans?

Let’s see if the Beckistan brigade attacks the site again simply for posting Beck’s racism for all to see. I’m not sure if it’s a remnant of very old, backwards Mormon teachings, which the people like majority leader Reid have gotten past a long time ago or what, but it’s obvious Mr. Beck missed a few church lessons. Why is it the alleged religious are always the worst on this stuff?

To add from some of the emails I’m getting, this is a classic and quite a testament to the racist crowd watching Beck:

“Glenn Beck is the least racist of all the Fox New People. I watch him just about every day and he is great at getting to the truth. …” – BL

Fox News, your Southern strategy station in action, confirmed by viewers themselves.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Do Democrats Realize the Economy is Killing Them?

By on 06 August 2010

[...} The drop is entirely due to a falloff in employment among women. ... African Americans were also hit especially hard. The EPOP for African Americans is back at its low point for the downturn and the EPOP for African American women hit a new low at 54.4 percent, 0.1 percentage points lower than the December ratio. [...] With the end of the inventory cycle, a huge wave of state and local cutbacks and further declines in house prices on the way, the situation looks bleak for the second half of 2010. – Dean Baker



Elite Democrats seem to think that at least looking like you’re working on the economy, but especially jobs, counts for something.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer is resigning. Why? She’s frustrated with Larry Summers. Like this wasn’t predictable. He’s the guy who questioned whether women have the innate abilities in math and science to succeed in these fields. He edged Ms. Romer out.

“She has been frustrated,” a source with insight into the WH economics team said. “She doesn’t feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president.” “She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn’t seem to be playing that role,” the source said.

Women in power positions being kept from doing their jobs should do just what Romer did. It’s not Summers’ obvious sexism that’s the real issue. It’s that the wrong people have Pres. Obama’s ear on the economy.

As for the abysmal jobs report, the Republicans are having a field day. They’re ignoring Krugman’s devastating take down of Paul Ryan, the “Flim Flam Man.”

Screen capture via Huffington Post; this post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Mort Zuckerman’s Rag Targets the First Lady

By on 06 August 2010

P042109PS-0870

Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama’s inaugural address to the nation, and he’s referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet. – New York Daily News, Mort Zuckerman’s mouthpiece

Implying that the First Lady Michelle Obama should have her head cut off in a blaring headline?

There was a piece in Mort Zuckerman’s rag, the New York Daily News, yesterday about First Lady Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain. The title was “Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation.” I guess they chose the long title because “Who Does This Bitch Think She Is?” didn’t lump those frivolous French into the title. Mort wanted to get the biggest bang for his buck.

That’s likely his editors chose Andrea Tantaros to write the piece. According to what accompanies the article, “She is a corporate communications professional who was formerly a Republican campaign strategist.” Of course she is. That’s why she can so easily throw around things like “modern-day Marie Antoinette” and “toning down the flash” so the Obama’s could “humanize” themselves. Ms. Tantaros steps all over herself in her class warfare cry.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. [...] I don’t begrudge anyone rest and relaxation when they work hard. We all need downtime – the First Family included. It’s the extravagance of Michelle Obama’s trip and glitzy destination contrasted with President Obama’s demonization of the rich that smacks of hypocrisy and perpetuates a disconnect between the country and its leaders.

Can you just imagine the ginormous squeal that would come out of these people if First Lady Michelle Obama traveled commercial and ended up inconveniencing who knows how many people, because she commandeered a plane? And the notion that Pres. Obama is demonizing the rich is ludicrous, but no doubt Ms. Tantaros and Mr. Zuckerman are simply furious about Obama holding BP’s bottom line to the fire. Besides, the Obamas aren’t exactly poor themselves, though you’d think card carrying Republicans would get it.

As for Republicans telling anyone what “perpetuates a disconnect between the country and its leaders,” I’d say wanting to repeal the 14 Amendment isn’t exactly embracing America or its people, not to mention that it was Republicans who wouldn’t extend unemployment benefits to workers, but want to continue the Bush tax cuts. Now that’s hypocrisy.

I wonder if Ms. Tantaros or her boss Mr. Zuckerman has recently served food at a homeless shelter like Michelle Obama and her family have done on occasion since they started living in the White House? Or if they spend time at a food bank like First Lady Michelle Obama has regularly? Oh, and I don’t care about “cellphone guy.”

Last year Mort’s rag went after First Lady Michelle Obama’s shoes. Yes, they were hellishly priced, but if she pays for them why should we care?

Now, I understand the Spain trip cost money to cart the Secret Service to Spain, as well as Mrs. Obama, and that Air Force Two obviously costs as well. So, if that blows your mind, so be it, but it’s not what Mort’s rag is making it out to be. She’s the First Lady not being paid a dime and it’s a thankless job at that, because whatever the first lady does she cannot win. So maybe I’m alone, but I just don’t care, except Mrs. Obama doesn’t deserve to be vilified by Republicans using the press to target the First Lady. But as to Ms. Tantaros’ suggestion of a domestic trip, the Obamas will be spending their family vacation in the Gulf Coast region. Pres. Obama stayed home to work on his birthday while Michelle went to Spain with Sasha, while the Malia was at camp. Not good enough, I know.

See, Mr. Zuckerman is very displeased with Pres. Obama, because of his mean, old policies against big business. He said so a week or so ago on “Morning Joe,” lashing into Rahm Emanuel and Obama saying “It is the most hostile administration to business and to the role of business that we’ve had in decades and he’s saying it’s not hostile to business? It’s total hostile to business.” I don’t have time to dissect Mr. Zuckerman’s gigantic whine, but it’s really silly, all because Wall Street got a bad name, because a bunch of crooks stole our money. But not only has Mr. Obama reneged on his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA so far, he’s made a NAFTA-esque trade pact with S. Korea, Panana and Columbia, with David Sirota writing about Obama helping to train workers in South Asia. I could add nuclear power, the oil industry, you name it, but your can use The Google yourself.

Mort’s just miffed because of a little regulation coming back into his world. Or maybe it’s because he might lose his Bush tax cut, I have no idea.

So, his New York rag does the cheapest thing imaginable by going after the President’s wife, First Lady Michelle Obama while she’s on a personal holiday, staying in luxury hotels which she is paying for herself, as are all of her friends. What a punk. Besides, Mrs. Obama has worked hard since coming into the White House and she’s entitled to take a vacation if she wants. They’ve got the money, so who cares? It doesn’t impinge on people struggling, simply because she wants to enjoy herself and has earned the money to pay for it.

That’s not the way life is supposed to work. We are to enjoy ourselves every minute we can steal away from the madness, not begrudging someone for some joy they may create for themselves. It’s not like First Lady Michelle Obama hasn’t been doing good deeds. Her work with childhood obesity is monumentally important, as is the $4.5B child nutrition bill just passed because of her. I wish more fat adults would take it to heart.

There was some media criticism of Nancy Reagan when she was spending a fortune on gowns in the ’80s, but it wasn’t much, even as an entire generation of gay men died off because her husband, Pres. Ronald Reagan, wouldn’t even say the word AIDS in public.

I wonder if Mort Zuckerman had this kind of cow when Jackie Kennedy went on her spending spree to outfit the White House, including indulging herself in a few French designers herself?

As you can see from the poll below that appeared with the wingnut hit piece, nobody is fooled by the New York Daily News screaming “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche!”

I’d personally like to see Pres. Obama call Mr. Zuckerman out on this cheap shot. I know, I know, then Mr. Obama would just get tagged as an angry black man, which might scare the Republican Tea Party into panicking. We can’t have that now, can we.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Pres. Clinton Saved PA-12, Boosted Romanoff, But Can Bill & Hillary ‘Save the Democrats’?

By on 05 August 2010

It’s hardly surprising that a president stands to play a commanding role in the fall campaign. But who would have guessed it might not be Barack Obama, but Bill Clinton? – Can Bill Clinton Save the Democrats?

It’s not a matter of fighting the Clinton versus Obama battle. It’s tactical electoral practicalities at this point. Josh Green, who’s written some scathing Bill Clinton fodder, weighs in:

Obama’s overall standing hovers around 45 percent and much lower in places like Arkansas and Missouri, where key Democrats are running in especially difficult races. That’s significant, because, as Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, has noted, ”When it comes to choosing candidates for Congress, it is opinions of the president’s performance that matter.” Today, many Democrats find themselves pondering a question that would have seemed unthinkable only a year ago: Does President Obama help them or hurt them?

Applied to President Clinton, that’s a much easier question to answer. He has emerged as the surrogate of choice for embattled Democrats. …

The demise of William Jefferson Clinton’s power has been greatly exaggerated. Not even race-baiting could kill Clinton, though I never believed it would. But former Pres. Clinton isn’t just endorsing anyone. Again, it’s about loyalty with the Clintons.

What all the candidates he has endorsed have in common is that they were early supporters of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidential nomination. Clinton also seems to be quietly making a point about race. He stumped for Blanche Lincoln in the predominantly black regions of Arkansas, and endorsed Kendrick Meek, a rising African American star, in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary, even though (or maybe especially because) both had been snubbed by Obama. It’s worth noting, too, that Clinton has not campaigned for candidates like Robin Carnahan in Missouri, who could use his support, but didn’t lend theirs to his wife.

On a side note, for all you Hillary supporters hoping or believing she’ll take another run at the presidency, regardless of her continual and emphatic denials, this is the kind of thing to which you should take note. Not the rantings of ratings whores and career Hillary haters like Chris Matthews who cannot be trusted, because in the end he’ll always turn on the Clintons. It doesn’t mean Hillary Rodham Clinton will run in 2016, but keeping your options open never hurts and sending a signal to Democrats that loyalty will be rewarded is as good a way as any to lay new ground. Because if Hillary learned anything it’s that there is no such thing as inevitable.

Pres. Obama is a very smart man, so I’m betting he could care less about the noise around former Pres. Bill Clinton. However, it does unmask many professional Obamphiles as people who really don’t have the experience or prowess of political perception to be in the business of analysis, even though they make money at it. They’ve simply been proven embarrassingly wrong about the Clintons, but also that it’s a mistake to ever bet against them.

All Pres. Obama cares about is keeping both houses of Congress so he can take that win as confirmation that the American people continue to stand by his leadership. He’ll then get ready to run on it for 2012. The irony this time around as it was in 2008 is that Barack Obama will need the Clintons by his side even more, because 2012 will be a lot more difficult than running against McCain-Palin. Though Hillary’s involvement will depend if she’s still secretary of state. She’s already said she won’t do a second term.

Again, for those of you writing me who won’t let the Hillary dream die, she could bow out at State before the 2012 battle begins so she can be available to get back into the partisan ring just in case she decides she wants to take another shot at the presidency in 2016. However unlikely, this is a more plausible scenario than Obama replacing Biden, which would cause undo drama, uncharacteristic of anything Obama, while overshadowing him, something that would be monumentally stupid. Plus, it’s an overexercised move that is simply not needed.

P100809PS-0332

Hey, but don’t get me wrong. I’d love the fantasy drama of the big switcheroo lived out, Biden to State – Clinton to vice president, because it is the stuff of political history and would be stunningly exciting to cover. There’s a reason national political writers are already scribing the story, with the help of Democrats like former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, an African American clearly sending a message, a different one than when he concocted that Pres. Clinton’s “fairy tale” line was talking about Obama’s candidacy, instead of the fact he was talking about Iraq. The Biden – Clinton switch is the stuff of a “West Wing” script that would be delicious if lived in real time, no matter how wildly unlikely and implausible, and we all know Pres. Obama isn’t beneath throwing people under the bus. However, we are talking about “nobody messes with Joe” Biden. Never mind that it would give the Right far more anti Obama ammunition than it would help the Left.

In reality, even if Democrats do keep Congress, which is still the best bet, they will have escaped the electoral knife, but it won’t be because voters support Pres. Obama, regardless of the White House marketing that will inevitably flood the zone. Doubts are only growing about his leadership as the days pass by and the economy continues to weigh on his presidency, with enthusiasm on the Left diminishing daily. If Obama and the Democrats escape in November, it will be because the Republican Tea Party is just way too scary to trust, with the conservative brand still in shambles.

Oh, and because former Pres. Bill Clinton helped them do it. There’s simply no denying it. Clinton Democrats are back.

But not even the Clintons can help Pres. Obama with activist progressives and the Left, many of whom don’t like the Clintons anyway. But who won’t ever forget Obama has used them as a whipping post far more than Republicans and conservatives. Unless Obama repairs this relationship, 2012 is going to be a bitch.

The only thing that will save Democrats is if the Left embraces their inner battered voter syndrome and goes for another round.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

How to Make a Presidential Statement Without Doing Anything

By on 05 August 2010

It’s 2010 and we’re still stuck in a time warp.

Pres. Obama on the unconstitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban:

“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Not very impressive, I know, but what did you expect? We are talking about Pres. Obama.

As a candidate he did not support gay marriage: “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

Pres. Obama is sounding decidedly like Joe Scarborough did on “Morning Joe” today, minus the states rights bs. Straddling personal beliefs because of ideological connections and the worry you might upset someone you need in your corner. Joe was called out by his guests, with John Heilemann saying he was “stuck in the 1950s.” Scarborough had a tough morning today.

Enough rhetoric, let’s review Obama’s actions. For instance, take DADT, where Obama has been all talk, waiting for Congress so he doesn’t have to get his electoral prowess dirty. The same for gay marriage. But guess what, it won’t matter in the end, because gays and lesbians are not going to vote Republican. However, if they give Pres. Obama one dime they’re suckers, though I believe unless he actually fights for them they should at the very least strike all elections until he does.

That’s how Pres. Obama and other Democrats get away with talking a good game, but never delivering on anything that actually represents substantial change. They know when the voting gets tough and people are looking at the right taking charge, people come home to daddy.

Voters on the left, as well as some movement progressives, are as much to blame as any politician, including Pres. Obama, for the status quo. Many just don’t have the courage of their convictions when push comes to the voting booth.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Gay Marriage Ban Overturned in California

By on 04 August 2010


Full text of ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the ruling. From the LA Times blog:

“He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings,” he said. “We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.”

The governor added that the decision “provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”

No heterosexual marriage is any loftier or holier than two gay individuals wanting to commit to each other for life. Just wonderful.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Birther Crazies and Dangerous Games

By on 04 August 2010

The president celebrates his 49th birthday Wednesday. On the same day, a new national poll indicates some Americans continue to doubt the president was born in the United States. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more than a quarter of the public have doubts about Obama’s citizenship… “Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S.” – CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.



The partisan divide on this issue is edifying only to the extent that it proves that right-wing smear merchants have far too much oxygen in the public square. It’s why the Obama administration caving to Andrew Breitbart on the Sherrod firing was so dangerous and sent exactly the wrong message. Included in the swiftboating crew is right-wing radio, but also the scurrilous attacks Pres. Obama receives via some members of the Fox News channel, including Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the “Fox and Friends” crew.

You’d think in the 21st century people could disagree over politics without birther nonsense still holding sway on the right. But considering Pres. Obama’s image is also being used as target practice in a “shooting game,” it illustrates that many representing the right today are just plain crazy, dangerously so.

Gov. Lingle, a Republican, has investigated Obama’s birth:

In a WABC interview before signing the legislation, Lingle said, “…I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health.” Lingle added, ” … The president was in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.” “It’s been established he was born here,” the governor continued. “I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now.” – CNN

Anyone thinking the Republican Tea Party is good for America simply isn’t paying attention to the issues. It’s all emotions at play, sort of like unruly teenagers who can’t be trusted so shouldn’t be left in control of anything.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Missouri Says No to Health Care Mandate

By on 04 August 2010

For now call it purely symbolic. See the failed efforts if you’re skeptical.

Photo of Taylor in Miss Missouri pagaent

But the mandate without the public option is a loser and always has been, as I’ve been writing from the start. That the Show Me state, where I was born, was the first to weigh in and say so doesn’t surprise me a bit. I’ve been talking to Missourians for some time, mostly via email, though I also hear from many via Facebook, so I wish I would have made a bet in Vegas.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the St. Louis home town paper.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

[...]Missouri was the first of four states to seek to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law that had been pushed by Obama. And while many legal scholars question whether the vote will be binding, the overwhelming approval gives the national GOP momentum as Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma hold similar votes during midterm elections in November.

The courts will likely have the last say, so who knows the practical impact of the almost 70% vote in Missouri against the healthcare mandate. So, call it a symbolic up yours to Washington Democrats.

It does bring back the impractical arrogance of Pres. Obama and Democrats who wouldn’t back a public option. Thinking that forcing people into a monopolized system is going to go down easily was the biggest political miscalculation of the health care debate. Movement progressives worked hard to keep Democrats from making this costly mistake. I watched as they made the case, many of you part of that work, but the Democratic establishment in Washington refused to listen. It’s come back to bite elite Democrats in the first I Told You So moment of the election season, which is also a warning shot to Obama’s re-election bid in 2012, though there is still no evidence yet anyone of the right can take him down.

Prop C in Missouri was also directed pointedly at Pres. Obama.

Whether the vote last night ends up meaning anything or not, it is a real shot in the arm to Tea Party Republicans for the midterms, while not doing much for the enthusiasm gap that’s been widening for months.

The mandate without a public option was always a loser. Missouri just confirmed it in case anyone’s still doubting, with discovery on the Virginia lawsuit certainly to be interesting to watch.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }