Page 4 | January | 2011 | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | January, 2011

Barack Obama Reconnects

By Taylor Marsh on 13 January 2011

–bumped from early a.m.–

Has there ever been a bigger contrast between crass and class than former governor Sarah Palin’s video statement and Pres. Obama’s address at the Tucson memorial?

Pres. Barack Obama gave the speech he wanted to give to the nation last night, conjuring up memories of his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, as well as the reason Republicans crossed over to vote for him and young people engaged to elect him.

The atmosphere was a bit odd, the raucous, almost never ending applause making for an odd setting for a memorial.

Reading the words before they were delivered, I was struck by the personal involvement of the tone. Then when Pres. Obama launched into the speech, what America heard was not just words, but a connection the man was feeling with a community that had been leveled with grief through a horrific domestic terrorism event that reawakened a nation to just how set on a tinder box we’ve allowed ourselves to become.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

“It is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not –” is certainly true. There is nothing simple about the defaming, flame throwing invective and hatred that’s been mounting for years in this country, mostly coordinated through right-wing radio and the cable copy cat Fox News’ radio stars Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, with Bill O’Reilly’s spectacle this week unfortunately making things worse.

You also cannot take away the fact that Jared Lee Loughner, whom Pres. Obama never mentioned, is exactly the type of man who is so susceptible to the combustibility in a community. His state, Arizona, stressed between fearmongering over brown people and the cuts to health care that leave the poor dying as they wait for a transplant, with economics stretching all human patience to the brink. A man who was clearly unstable, however he’s finally diagnosed, and one of those disenfranchised Americans that hate rhetoric reaches much more easily through the atmosphere it creates.

Obama’s grace and eloquence last night is also why so many on the Left have become so frustrated with him. His speeches were the wings beneath Democratic wings, to borrow from Bette a bit, who made people believe he would be different and together people could accomplish things that another Democrat couldn’t deliver.

Then Barack Obama began governing.

It’s not been pretty. It’s been a presidency of conservative compromise and half-measures from the time he began with a Democratic majority that could have yielded so much more with less giving in and sounder policy prescriptions. The fundraisers, activists and Democratic enthusiasts who helped put Barack Obama in office no doubt appreciated the speech, but the chasm between his words and his actions have never been bridged and at this point no one is going to be fooled that Obama giving an important speech to the nation will actually change anything on the way he actually governs. This is particularly true with conservative Bill Daley running the White House, though the match is perfect for the president, because he remains a conservative Democrat at a time of Tea Party rise, with the latter the engine that helped manifest “don’t retreat, reload,” “second Amendment remedies,” “armed and dangerous,” as well as Sarah Palin’s crosshairs targeting.

The Arizona domestic terrorism tragedy allowed Pres. Obama to reconnect and reveal his heart and humanity. His largeness as a leader was present last night, his grace evident, and the difference he brings to the office of the presidency when compared to Sarah Palin’s “blood libel” self-infatuation victimhood proved why Republicans will never let her get the nomination or why the Right will be torn apart by her fans storming the primaries to make it happen.

The presidency isn’t for amateurs, even if they get elected from time to time. We saw what happened when George W. Bush got two terms. The Tea Party was born through Rand Paul. The Iraq war expanded. Afghanistan was ignored. Tax cuts became the road to perdition. All dumped in Barack Obama’s lap. But when the amateurs showed up, the Tea Party crowd represented by Sarah Palin and ignited by her “death panels” squeal, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell and the throngs of the far Right, some of whom came strapped or packing firearms, the temperature shot up without the rabble rousers knowing how to control what they ignited.

Pres. Obama tried to defuse this last night.

The debate surrounding the murderous domestic terrorism that hit Arizona on hate speech and over the top invectives has begun, regardless of the Right’s fight to keep it from happening. Rep. Garbrielle Giffords own prophetic words about Sarah Palin’s crosshairs having “consequences” rings out still. The Right on Twitter retweeting again and again “it did not” after Obama said simple rhetoric didn’t cause the event, while they still can’t face the importance of the debate that needs to be had. It’s understandable, because as we saw with Sarah Palin, they just can’t admit their complicity in our nation’s toxicity.

Last night was a reminder of why people voted for Obama. It’s also his opening argument for why he should be reelected in 2012. Why most Democrats, no matter how upset they get with Obama’s conservative corporatism, come home in the end.

Read full story · Comments { 41 }

Connecticut, Vermont Move to Set Up Progressive Universal Healthcare

By Art Pronin on 13 January 2011

Democrats have come up with a slogan for Republican efforts to repeal the health care law: “The Patient’s Rights Repeal Act.” GOP Plans to ratchet down the vitriol next week with what Boehner labels as the Democrats’ “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.” Gee call it the “Big Pharma Giveaway Act,” but this? The term “killing” is not needed, plus this bill doesn’t kill jobs.

Connecticut is moving to establish a public option for all its residents. It will reportedly save the people of the state an estimated $355 million dollars. Vermont is moving towards single payer. Newly elected Dem Governor Shumlin has promised to try and enact single payer in Vermont. Sen. Wyden and Sen. Scott Brown are moving legislation to accelerate provisions of the ACA law that let states create universal HCR programs outside the law’s ridiculous insurance mandate.

If a state like Connecticut can successfully do a public option and Vermont single payer this will be landmark progressive stuff that will I think pave the way for other states to establish government health insurance for all to have access to. Vermont is moving to set up single payer and Oregon is moving to establish some kind of government insurance system. California, Illinois, New Mexico are other states with large single payer movements. And don’t forget Massachusetts, the biggest single payer organization is there and several non binding resolutions have now passed by the voters of the state in 2010 and 2008. Good news for once from the progressive front.

On the Connecticut public option:

…Effective on January 1, 2014, when most federal reforms become operational, SustiNet will offer comprehensive, commercial benefits to all of the state’s employers and households. This new health insurance choice will be available both inside and outside Connecticut’s new health insurance exchange, established under the ACA. SustiNet will undertake feasibility studies, develop business plans, conduct a risk assessment, and take any other steps needed to ensure that the new competitive option is viable and adds value in the marketplace. [...]
SustiNet will offer all employers and families a new, competitive health insurance option that reforms health care delivery and payment to improve value and slow premium growth. These reforms will spark broader change throughout Connecticut. Leading by example, SustiNet’s innovations will make it easier for others to follow a similar path. Our proposal harnesses the power of competition, ensuring that successful SustiNet reforms will be replicated by private insurers seeking to preserve their market share. SustiNet will also work collaboratively to implement multi-payer reforms that help the state’s providers give their patients high- value, quality care. And by enrolling a large number of consumers, SustiNet will gain the leverage it needs to reform health care delivery and payment.

In Vermont Shumlin promises to move forward with single- a central campaign promise. Actvist pressure is key and boy the activsts are decending on the Vermont statehouse.

Burlington Free Press:

An age-old and annual tradition of in-person advocacy in Montpelier had been renewed. Many other organizations representing a variety of interests will rally this year on the Statehouse steps and visit with lawmakers inside the historic building.
Wednesday, homeless and health care advocates were encouraged by the response they received from state leaders.
Gov.-elect Peter Shumlin, who is to be inaugurated today, told the homeless advocates he is putting $500,000 into the midyear budget adjustment bill to boost spending for homeless shelters.
House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, gave the advocates advice for how best to get results from legislators.
“Talk to your individual representatives to let them know how this issue affects your communities,” he said.
Health-care advocates who want government-run universal coverage look at the incoming Shumlin administration with high hopes. Shumlin campaigned saying he would try to create such a system.
Although a legislative consultant has indicated that could take 12 years and eight federal waivers that require congressional approval, advocates see this as their big chance.
“The door’s open,” said Mari Cordes, president of the Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals.

Truthout ponders the impact if Vermont goes single payer:

A single-payer health rally in Vermont.
The grassroots single-payer movement in Vermont reflects the growing belief that the fight to make health care a human right must come from the states. But will the passage of federal reform get in the way?
When Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, many thought the long and tedious stretch of legislative wrangling and endless debates about health care reform had come to an end and the prospects for further meaningful reform would be shelved for years or decades.
But while the country was consumed with the incredibly narrow debate in DC, dictated largely by drug and insurance lobbyists, anti-abortion politicians and a collection of conservative Democratic senators with close ties to the insurance and drug industries, another significant health care battle was taking place hundreds of miles to the north, in the tiny little state of Vermont, population, 600,000. By the time Obama signed a federal health care bill into law, the Vermont Workers’ Center was almost two years into its “Healthcare is a Human Rights campaign,” which had the unambiguous goal of abolishing for-profit health care in the state and passing a statewide, single-payer health care system that guarantees health care as a right to all Vermonters. In May, the Vermont Legislature, under constant pressure from this growing people’s movement, passed a bill that could possibly lead to Vermont being the first state to pass a single-payer health care system, setting up what could be a crucial phase of the fight for health care justice.
If Vermont is able to break this ground, the implications could reverberate well past the borders of the Green Mountain State. The fight for statewide single-payer here reflects a growing belief among health care activists that the path to a universal public system, will not take place in Washington, DC, where moneyed interests have a death grip on the legislative process, but through state houses across the country. Further, the effort in Vermont may prove to be the first test case of the “state innovation” language in the federal reform bill and could indicate if Obamacare will ultimately serve to enable statewide single-payer systems or if it will kill them. Finally, the movement in Vermont also highlights a fascinating debate over the rhetoric of health care reform. Should advocates point to the significant savings associated with single-payer health care and the unsustainability of the current system? Or should the primary emphasis view the fight for public health care as a matter of basic human rights?

The Vermont Workers Center has been key in the fight for single payer and worker’s rights. Here is what they did a week ago:

Over three hundred Vermonters converged at the Statehouse today January 5th to deliver more than four thousand petition signatures to lawmakers Shap Smith, John Campbell, Claire Ayer and Mark Larson. The petition demands that Vermont leads the nation in the adoption of universal healthcare. The petition also builds on last year’s passage of Act 128 the “Universal Access To Healthcare Act,” which mandates that Vermont create a healthcare system which meets the human rights principles of universality, equity, accountability, transparency, participation and healthcare as a public good. The rally also comes in anticipation of the release of the state mandated universal healthcare system options, designed by Dr. William Hsiao, expected on January 19th of this year.
The Cedar Creek room was packed with Healthcare Is a Human Right supporters from all across the state in red shirts carrying signs, along with many legislators on the first day back in the Statehouse. Mari Cordes of the Vermont Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals Union at Fletcher Allen, spoke about her personal experiences seeing the healthcare crisis in Vermont, “As a nurse, I can report first hand that the current system is not working. We know that people are suffering and dying needlessly. Tens of thousands of Vermonters lack access to healthcare and we know people who have health insurance are suffering because they cannot afford the increasing costs of premiums, deductibles and copayments,” said Cordes. “And we know as a result many Vermonters are not getting the care they need when they need it because they can’t afford it.”
All of the legislators who spoke at the rally expressed their commitment to passing legislation this year in order to create a healthcare system that meets the human rights standards adopted in Act 128. Speaker of the House Representative Shap Smith (D-Morrisville), pledged to push for passing universal healthcare legislation this year. The new co-chairs of the Healthcare Committee, Senator Claire Ayer (D-Addison County) and Representative Mark Larson (D-Burlington) both stated their support for the campaign and for passing legislation this session. “It’s a disgrace that we’re the only industrialized nation without universal health care,” said Senator Ayer. Representative Larson reiterated that passing a universal healthcare bill this session is a top priority, “We are going to give this our most and work very hard to get something done this year.”
The rally was followed by the People’s Movement Assembly to address the many critical issues facing working and low-income families, and to build a new people’s movement in Vermont. Group after group echoed the need to come together across struggles, both in Vermont and nationally. “To truly have safe and healthy communities we need to build a broad and unified movement that directly confronts systems of oppression,” said Sheila Linton of the Healthcare Is a Human Right campaign and Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity. Brendan O’Neill from the Vermont Farmworker Solidarity Project agreed, “Only by working together will we be able to build movements capable of taking back these resources that corporations drain from our communities and rebuild our food, healthcare and educational systems.”

You can help the fight for single payer in Vermont, just click here to get involved.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Heal This

By Taylor Marsh on 13 January 2011

Speaker John Boehner will host a cocktail party for the Republican National Committee at the same time that President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation at the memorial service for victims of the Tucson shooting. – Roll Call

I honestly don’t know what to say, when in a moment of national mourning the Speaker of the House chooses a Washington, D.C. fundraiser instead of attending the memorial in Tuscon, Arizona.

After a pitch perfect address to the House, the quieting of the congressional schedule out of respect, all of which began through eloquently stating the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was an attack on all who serve, Speaker Boehner skips out for money’s sake.

After Vice President Joe Biden, who is traveling in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Speaker Boehner is second in line to the presidency.

He’s supposed to be the serious one.

Mr. Boehner leads the Republican House that Pres. Obama and Democrats are supposed to work with to heal the nation and take another look at how we get to where we’re going.

I can’t think of one good reason for Boehner not to be in Tucson, but upon consideration a fundraiser doesn’t come to mind.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) turned down an offer by President Barack Obama to travel on Air Force One to Arizona for a memorial service on behalf of the victims of Saturday’s shooting, a decision that has upset some Democrats.

Call me an idealist, but it’s just so thunderously disappointing.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Giffords ‘All There,’ Made ‘V’ Sign with Her Hand

By Taylor Marsh on 12 January 2011

more at Huffington Post

Keith Olberman tweets the best news of the day.

Rep. Giffords is “definitely ‘there’,” her aide tells Brian Williams. She’s made “V” sign with her fingers, scratched her nose…

Pres. Obama will speak tonight from Arizona; word out that he will talk about the victims and the heroes.

Juxtaposed against this event is the arrest of a man threatening to kill Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott.

As for the ongoing controversy about Sarah Palin invoking “blood libel,” Politics Daily religion reporter weighs in. The way this day has gone the title is going to upset some people.

Palin’s use of the “blood libel” accusation was an example of overreach. The analogy is certainly in keeping with a growing trend among many conservatives to see themselves as an oppressed minority — just as the Jews have been throughout much of the last 2,000 years. But it can strike Jews as a kind of expropriation of their own painful history, and an attempt to make a false historical equivalency — Christian conservatives in 21st century America are not Jews in 12th century England.
“When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of the left-leaning Jewish group J Street, said Wednesday.
Hank Sheinkopf, a Jewish New York-based Democratic political consultant, told Politico use of the term was “absolutely inappropriate.”
Even some conservatives were taken aback. Jennifer Rubin, who penned a lengthy critique of American Jewish antipathy to Palin in Commentary magazine a year ago, tweeted Wednesday morning that the “blood libel” usage shows she is “inflam[matory]” and “not serious.”

There’s been a lot of cable chatter about what tonight might mean for Pres. Obama. But right now it’s not for me.

I’m just overjoyed that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is fighting back and winning so far.

And a question, which is dumber, this or this?

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Inspires Breitbart to Invoke Gang Rape

By Taylor Marsh on 12 January 2011

–updated below–

No one should be surprised that Andrew Breitbart would equate deserved criticism of former governor Sarah Palin with gang rape. This is the type of hate speech from the Right, especially towards women, that is common. Remember their depictions of Speaker Pelosi, Hillary Clinton before she became secretary of state?

Unfortunately, the criticism is wide and deep and includes conservatives, as well as Jewish leaders:

“Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a ‘blood libel’ against her and others,” said David Harris, president of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in a statement. “This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.”

From USA Today, (h/t SecyClintonBlog):

Rabbi Irwin Kula observes,
She is probably ignorant of its history as many people are of inflammatory expressions that get into our common culture’s vernacular. What it does indicate is something far sadder and of greater concern. Sarah Palin’s use of this term “blood libel” indicates that she sees herself as the victim this week. This is a profoundly distorted experience of reality that any sane person in this country from left to far right should see given that the true victims, the six Americans murdered have not yet even even been buried yet and fourteen other victims lie wounded in hospitals recovering.
Kula even wonders whether the phrase came to her because,
… at some level, unconsciously, she feels guilty in some way for what has happened. But this is so painful at an unconscious level that she has disassociated and lashed out accusing others of what is a deep self-judgment. This is sad, as she is not responsible at all for the shootings in Arizona. She is simply, along with all of us who have created her, responsible for the coarsening of our public culture at a time when we are facing historic challenges that cut to the very core of what America will be in the next period of history.

The victimhood mentality of Sarah Palin seems to be the only position, a permanent crouch, from which she can operate, so she can be prepared at any moment to pounce, to attack.

Mrs. Palin could have simply come out to say that going forward she was going to be more diligent in her use of language and anything else that could be used to incite violence. But no.

To Palin fans, I was fair to Sarah Palin right up until the moment I rendered much deserved criticism. Just one response:

Taylor you are a low life to talk the way you do and have a hatred for Sarah Palin. All this talk about the right, bull shit!!!! The hatred is on the left. Sarah thinks different than you do and is winning with her way of thinking with the American people and boy does that piss you off.

Barbara Lay
Houston, TX

Delusional people like Ms. Lay and other Palin devotees didn’t read about the Republicans who resigned in Arizona:

Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.

Then there is Joe Wilson ‘You Lie’ Slogan Etched Onto Line Of Assault Rifle Components.

Former governor Sarah Palin had a chance today to regain her footing. Instead she fell on her face and on the way down decided to declare herself a political martyr, too.

That conservatives like Andrew Breitbart felt it necessary to go where no one should go in her defense has been part of the Right’s problem all along. The hate never ends.

UPDATE II: Andrew Breitbart didn’t like my post, so he attacked my hairdresser on Twitter.

UPDATE: Sect. Clinton weighed in on the subject of Loughner today.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday Clinton, who had recently referred to the shooter as an “extremist,” doubled down on her comments saying that the shooter was an extremist who acted on his “bizarre” political views.
“Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman,” Clinton said. “And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action, that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism. So yes, I think that when you’re a criminal who is in some way pursuing criminal activity connected to — however bizarre and poorly thought through — your political views, that’s a form of extremism.”
Clinton added that she knows Giffords personally.
“I happen to know the congresswoman,” Clinton added. “I think very highly of her. She’s an extraordinary person as well as a great public servant. And the loss of all of the people — the federal judge, the nine-year-old girl, and others — is just heartbreaking to me.”

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Sarah Palin Speaks from Some Undisclosed Facebook Location

By Taylor Marsh on 12 January 2011

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Sarah Palin chose to forget today that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords brought up Palin’s “targeting” of her when lamenting the vitriolic political rhetoric in this country before Jared Lee Loughner tried to assassinate her in Arizona.

In a weirdly disembodied and out of touch statement from the abyss of her self-imposed political exile, Palin picks today, the day Pres. Obama will address the nation in Arizona, to come out to mount a defense of herself using the term “blood libel” for anyone saying she’s played a part in the escalating negative rhetoric in this country.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online has this correct:

I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

After a gaping silence, using “blood libel” is a very bad move on Palin’s part. J-Street has demanded an apology.

She seems clearly not to understand the meaning any more than she does what her own complicity in the toxic atmosphere debate has come to mean in this country.

From Facebook:

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

There was nothing “imagined” in the gun-laced rhetoric and crosshairs targeting of Sarah Palin. Rep. Giffords found them offensive herself we now know, because she said so on camera, not from some undisclosed location in presidentland.

No politician was more important in 2010 than Sarah Palin, who rose from the embarrassment of her vice presidency nomination, then leaving her governorship prematurely, to be the face and energy of a movement that began during George W. Bush’s profligate presidency, then went on to take the Democratic Party out in the midterm elections. However, as much as she understands and can exploit the politics of the moment, her lacking in self-awareness and the narcissism revealed once again today proves why so many Republicans don’t want her to be their nominee for the presidency.

Is there a reason Sarah Palin’s first statement to the public after the Arizona domestic terrorism came in a canned video statement? It was no mistake it was set up similarly to what presidents do in speaking to the people after a tragedy. Playing president isn’t what Palin needed right now.

I did hope she’d be able to at least have the personal fortitude to speak on the record to the public personally on Fox News, which is friendly to her.

It’s very sad to see a powerful female politician, someone who was the primary jolt responsible for the Republicans taking the House in such numbers, like Palin be reduced to this. That she hasn’t earned the right to pretend to be president seems to have escaped her completely. But at least we can all be assured her gigantic ego is intact and she hasn’t learned a thing.

Too bad no one will ever forget “don’t retreat, reload” and the crosshairs targeting image that helped fill the political air in this country with gun metaphors, along with her negative bomb throwing, with one of the people she named with her gun sights almost killed in a political assassination attempt, with 6 others dead and many more wounded.

Former governor Sarah Palin had a chance to prove prowess in this moment and she failed abysmally, because she continues to talk only to her own choir. She simply thinks too small to be able to harness a moment of self-reflection, grace or greatness at a time of such great national tragedy.

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 68 }

The Ailes Edict

By Taylor Marsh on 11 January 2011

Forgive me if I’m highly doubtful that Roger Ailes will change anything on Fox News Channel. But the interview with Russell Simmons sure is great PR and is getting a lot of attention.

Former Pres. Clinton spoke to the BBC saying politics shouldn’t “degenerate into demonisation” and that the rhetoric “falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike.” He certainly knows this first hand.

Less surprising was that Ailes used the platform to scoff at the notion that angry political commentary (including on his cable station) had anything to do with the shooting of Giffords and 19 others.
Ailse did concede that a bit of dialing back of the rhetoric might be in order. “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually,” Ailes said. “You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.”

It would sure help Mr. O’Reilly. I got worried for Bill-O Monday night, because at one point I thought his head was going to explode, he was that red, lips tight, his eyes beadier than usual. O’Reilly’s tirade over MSNBC’s coverage, which has been brilliant and unflinching from morning to night, of the AZ domestic terrorism tragedy and Giffords attempted assassination, has been bad for Fox. So much so that the Fox star went after them with a vengeance not seen in a very long time; he also had choice words for the New York Times and Paul Krugman.

I think Krugman and the Times hit a nerve. Why else bother?

In fact, the entire Left of this country coming out saying we’re mad as hell and we’re going to call the haters out has done the debate on speech in this country the justice it deserves.

Does anyone think there would be open debate if Democrats hadn’t taken this subject on by driving right into it?

It’s the very last thing the Right expected. They were blind-sided, caught flat-footed, left slack-jawed by the ferocity of progressive Democrats in this country turning the debate into them and saying they need to be held responsible for the vitriol that has gotten so bad in Arizona it’s deadly. The Right actually believed progressives were down and out after the midterm “shellacking” Pres. Obama took through Congress, when it wasn’t their fault in the first place.

PR ploy or not, Roger Ailes for Fox News felt compelled to say something because as much as the Right and the Tea Party activists squeal, the foundation of the argument being made against them about the vitriol in this country is solid, deep and comes with art, video tape and transcripts. If it wasn’t true the Right wouldn’t be yelling so loudly. Fox News wouldn’t be reacting defensively, with Bill O’Reilly, who I don’t even believe is part of the worst of what goes on, making a sad spectacle of himself last night. O’Reilly’s Mr. Wilson impersonation looked a lot like John McCain lately and it wasn’t pretty.

As for Fox’s Glenn Beck, his nonsensical signature ruminations have Ailes complaining on his way to the bank. It’s unlikely Beck’s unhinged warnings about Americans “losing our country” all because of Pres. Obama will change. He also won’t stop regurgitating his fantastic exaggerations about the end of America as we know it being close at hand, which is a constant fearmongering tactic of the Right, but Beck’s specialty. Loughner had no connection with Glenn Beck, but if they’d met is there any doubt they would have related?

What Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing radio rabble all have in common is they inhabit the same vacuum of irresponsibility and don’t understand the reach of media and the combined impact of all the differing platforms offered in 21st century society. The bombardment isn’t making people smarter, because most fixate on the flashy, with the news & facts angle often missed, something Fox doesn’t even do (excepting Shep Smith and very few others); most people clinging to their favorite cable stars and their opinion shows.

It also used to be when someone said something stupid on the a.m. right-wing talk radio dial it was kept among the crazies. Now it’s blasted on Fox News Channel, too.

Now Sarah Palin can load up a crosshairs “target” graphic and name names of congresspeople while her sycophants cheer. Rep. Bachmann can encourage people to be “armed and dangerous.” Glenn Beck scares the living bejesus out of people who may not have a firm grip that what he’s talking about is fiction. Meanwhile, day in day out and through the night, Rush labels the President of the United States “Imam Obama,” floating the threat that a Muslim is in the White House, while his hack radio cronies regurgitate his talking point, all of which is broadcast or shared on Facebook, Twitter, emails, websites, chat room, comment sections and on and on.

It leaves the average listener of the Right’s fearmongering panic brigade paralyzed with fright.

The Left’s perceived crime is that they want to take care of you from birth to death, making sure you don’t end up on the streets or go nuts without care.

Which reminds me, next time the Right rails about cutting health care or mental health, remind them about all their calls and questions about why Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t taken care of and found unbalanced sooner. Why Gov. Brewer’s cuts backed the entire infrastructure of Arizona over a cliff so that the government couldn’t do its primary job, which is to take care of people and keep them safe. Basic government services the Right fights against every single day.

At the reading of the Constitution on the 112th Congress a crazy birther devotee screamed out during the “natural born citizen” clause, “Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!” The woman didn’t squeal such an obscenity in the well of the House because she was a Lefty or because she had the facts.

If you don’t think it’s dangerous to our democratic republic for Americans to believe the President isn’t legitimate, then you don’t know the meaning of America.

There is only one group responsible for putting doubt in the public’s mind and de-legitimizing Barack Obama. The unhinged Right. This is the same crew that talks about patriotism, but then lies and smears Vietnam war heroes for political gain. They fuel public paranoia, which at a time of economic instability, is a toxic mixture, especially when these same people are suggesting to come “armed and dangerous” to political rallies, because the nation is at peril.

The constant drumbeat from the Right and Fox News, but particularly on right-wing radio, is to drive the narrative that there is a clear and present danger from any Democrat, progressive or liberal, which threatens the American way of life. This story has been told over and over again for a very long time and it’s driven by everything the Right says as its foundation.

I’m not crazy about the whole “No Labels” craze, but there’s a reason Mark McKinnon co-created the group and it’s not because he’s proud of what’s happening on the Right.

In today’s global media environment people armed with false information from media outlets and hosts who rev up the dangers of their fiction through fearmongering Armageddon for America language now reach many more people than ever before, but unfortunately these same people refuse to embrace the responsibility that comes with such a privilege.

Fox won’t change.

Media is driven by money, not conscience, which goes double on cable, especially when the media outlet is betting it all on making Democrats not just opponents but evil.

It comes from Roger Ailes’ basic template for Fox News Channel: right-wing radio and the hate, drama and language of battle that keeps it afloat.

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Robert Kuttner: Zero Hour Approaches on Social Security

By Art Pronin on 11 January 2011

The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. ~Woodrow Wilson

Progressive activist and longtime author Robert Kuttner continues to warn us about the days ahead. Kuttner said weeks ago sources in the party and White House were informing him that in the SOTU Obama will lay out cuts to Social Security. If true many question how the Democrat Party remains whole.

His new HuffPo piece has some good notes ans scary ones. Obama has no need to rec cutting SS. SS is not our nation’s deficit problem and most the public is opposed to changing it. Obama economic guru Goolsbee was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and Kuttner shows the guy agreeing with Sen Graham on putting cutting the New Deal on the table “as adults.”

Praise is heaped on Harry Reid for defending Social Security against the media, right-wing, White House attacks. Look how easily Reid bats down NBC’s David Gregory on why Social Security, again, is not the problem.

The Right keep pushing, keeps getting more vitriolic with deadly consequences, and getting bolder partly due to Obama caving into their narratives and policies over and over.

Every time he does so the Right gets stronger than ever. Progressives have got to find some way to fight in a way that makes the White House take real notice. Fast.

Kuttner: Zero Hour for Social Security

As I have previously warned–and I hope I’m wrong–President Obama seems on the verge of needlessly cutting America’s most valued social program and the one that best differentiates Republicans from Democrats. This is part of a vain effort to appease deficit hawks in his own party and on Wall Street, as well as Republicans who are utter hypocrites when it comes to deficits–increasing them as long as the purpose is tax cuts but then turning around and demanding program cuts in order to reduce the deficits they created.
All the choreography is in place for the president to embrace Social Security cuts in his upcoming State of the Union address.
Cutting Social Security is financially needless–the program is in sound shape for the next 27 years. It has nothing to do with the current deficit. It will be solvent indefinitely if we can get some wage growth going again….

The Obama admin keeps dropping hints that the New Deal will be offered up in a grand deal with the GOP. Strong hint: deficit commission stacked with anti Social Security hacks. Another This past Friday’s Blitzer interview with Goolsbee and Sen Graham:

Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee plays a clip of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham demanding Social Security cuts as the price of extension of the debt ceiling. Goolsbee is resolute on the need to extend the debt ceiling, but strongly suggests that Obama is amenable to a deal on Social Security cuts:
[BEGIN EXTRACT]
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I’d like to see a serious effort, bipartisan in nature, led by the White House where we look at extending the age of Social Security retirement. We all know we have to do that. And when it comes to means-testing benefits, that should be on the table. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Extending the age of Social Security benefits and having means testing. Are you open to those two proposals?
GOOLSBEE: Well, Wolf, let me separate two things. And I really wish that Republicans in Congress could separate them.
The debt limit discussion is about the full faith and credit of the United States. We should not be — nobody should be playing chicken with that or playing games with that.
We should have an honest discussion about the budget. The president is not against that. He knows we must deal with our long- run fiscal challenges. And when he releases his budget in the a few weeks, I think it is going to be clear that he takes that responsibility seriously, and he’s not averse to making tough choices.
Let us have an honest and open discussion about the budget and what we should do, what cuts ought to be made, in what areas. Do not tie the discussion about the budget to a thing that is fundamentally about the trustworthiness of the U.S. fiscal system and the government, which is what the debate about the debt limit is.
BLITZER: And what about the issue of Social Security? Are you ready to discuss that?
GOOLSBEE: Well, the president formed the fiscal commission. He was the one who authorized it over the objections of some of the opponents, and that body put out a report which I think highlights how important the longer-run fiscal circumstances are. And the president has always said, let’s not automatically rule everything out before we even begin.
Let’s see what plans and various people put forward, and let’s deal with that as adults. Let’s not try to turn this into a game of chicken where we say, unless you agree to our own specific partisan policy moves, we’re going to threaten to default the U.S. government. And I would say, I hope that everyone in Congress can avoid resorting to policies that make the deficit worse while, at the same time, discussing the need for responsibility.
BLITZER: Austan Goolsbee, thanks very much for joining us. Good luck.
[END EXTRACT]

Good luck indeed! The fiscal commission called for cutting Social Security. And when the president’s economic adviser is asked directly about Social Security cuts and quotes his leader saying, “Let’s not rule everything out,” we’re in big trouble.

So Kuttner notes someone on Sunday talk shows who has been defending Social Security against Right wing lies. Sen. Harry Reid. Yep. Harry.

DAVID GREGORY: Social Security– how does it have to change? What they put on the agenda is raising the retirement age, maybe means testing benefits. Is it time for Social Security to fundamentally change if you’re gonna deal with the debt problem?
HARRY REID: One of the things that always troubles me is when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security. Social Security is a program that works. And it’s going to be– it’s fully funded for the next forty years. Stop picking on Social Security. There’re a lotta places–
DAVID GREGORY: Senator are you really saying –
HARRY REID: –where you can go to save money.
DAVID GREGORY:– the arithmetic on Social Security works?
HARRY REID: I’m saying the arithmetic in Social Security works. I have no doubt it does.
DAVID GREGORY: It’s not in crisis?
HARRY REID: No, it’s not in crisis. This is– this is– this is something that’s perpetuated by people who don’t like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course.
DAVID GREGORY: Means testing. Raising the retirement age–do you agree with either of those?
HARRY REID: –I’m not going to go to with any of those backdoor methods- you know, to whack Social Security recipients. I’m not going to do that. We have a lot of things we can do with– this debt. It’s a problem. But one of the places where I’m not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.[END EXTRACT]
What’s so lovely about this exchange is that it demonstrates how the press is utterly marinated in the conventional wisdom of the deficit hawks, and how easily some straight talk cuts through it…

Of final note, Kuttner slams the Daley appointment. He hits on a important point.

…When your sworn enemies send you bouquets, something is very wrong. According to the Journal: “Bill Daley, we’ve come to praise you… Still, we’ve been wrong before. Whether we’re wrong again rests less with the pragmatic Mr. Daley than with the man of the left who is now his boss.”
The man of the left! But this propaganda game seems to get results. The more the right conjures up this mythical socialist Obama, the more he appoints conservatives. Let’s see if Obama, this time, can live up to his billings and do as well as Harry Reid in standing up for Social Security.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Call it what it was: An Act of Domestic Terrorism

By Taylor Marsh on 11 January 2011

Good editorial cartoons rip the heart from the moment and always piss people off.

… But even some Republicans sympathetic to Ms. Palin suggested that she needed to find a more substantive and nuanced means of addressing the criticism to avert any risk to her political standing and to maintain control of her political narrative. … But other Republicans said that if she was serious about becoming president, the shootings in Tucson might require Ms. Palin to step out of the political comfort zone she has defined for herself, whether she viewed the current criticism of her as fair or not. The task may be all the more pressing given that polls, too, suggest that Ms. Palin has to pass the kind of “political character” test that a moment like this can present. [...] Ari Fleischer, who served as White House spokesman for President George W. Bush, said Ms. Palin had to address the shootings with more than a Facebook post, though he said he would advise her to wait a few days as the political dust settled. – Palin, Amid Criticism, Stays in Electronic Comfort Zone

Joe Scarborough said it perfectly yesterday on “Morning Joe,” calling out politicians who have done “reckless and irresponsible things.” He stated exactly why what happened this weekend wasn’t just a tragedy, but something that goes to our country’s founding soul.

“… It’s not an overstatement to say it’s an attack on democracy itself. This is the very essence of what makes this country great. … That citizens can get up and talk to and hold accountable and ask questions of their elected leaders.” – Joe Scarborough

The Arizona domestic terrorism tragedy has caused a chill to run down Lady Liberty’s spine.

…and once again all the signs were there, people knew something was wrong, but the community couldn’t connect it all to stop what was going to happen.

It’s become so cool to hate our government that those who attack it forget that the founders risked their lives and those of their families to create just such an institution to keep America running.

Tea Party activists have to come to grips with this part of our history, too, however inconvenient it is for them to admit government has a real purpose in people’s lives.

Scarborough called out Rep. Michele Bachmann, as well as former Gov. Sarah Palin, for their heated rhetoric, especially the gun-laced invectives. It’s not that either of them inspired Loughner, which no responsible person is saying or believes. It’s about the hate speech that they help spread that breeds on Fox News, especially through Glenn Beck, and right-wing talk radio, which Rush Limbaugh laughingly called free speech yesterday, forgetting that words have consequences. He couldn’t help but continue his hatred Monday: Democrats Eager to See Obama Profit Politically from Mass Murder, was the top headline on Rush’s website early this morning. Right-wing hate speech has built on itself until it’s been accepted as the norm, especially when it’s profitable.

“We have extremists in our country,” (Sect. of State Hillary Clinton) said. “A wonderful and incredibly brave young woman congress member was just shot by extremists in our country. “We have the same kinds of problems, so rather than standing off of each other we should work to try and prevent the extremists wherever they are from being able to commit violence.” – The Telegraph

Words also fuel energy into cities and states, culminating in the fury of negativity we’ve all been experiencing for years now. It’s infectious, contagious and deadly. That’s part of what caught Jared Lee Loughner up when he started stalking Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Mika Brzezinski spoke of the ability for elected officials to connect with constituents, “a little bit of that freedom, a little bit of that right has been damaged.”

That’s an assault on our very way of life, our civil society, uncivil right now.

“This was another one of these massacres,” Patrick J. Buchanan offered.

No, it wasn’t.

However Jared Lee Loughner’s state of mind will be judged by professionals, he admittedly “planned” an “assassination” that succeeded in killing 6 people, wounding 14 others, with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life. Loughner has anti-government sentiments, as well as strong views about women and abortion. He called one woman “a terrorist for killing a baby.”

From conservative David Brooks today in “The Politicized Mind”:

Before he allegedly went off on his shooting rampage in Tucson, Jared Loughner listed some of his favorite books on his YouTube page. These included: “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” “Alice in Wonderland,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Through the Looking Glass” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Many of these books share a common theme: individuals trying to control their own thoughts and government or some other force trying to take that control away.

What Jared Lee Loughner wanted to do was disrupt our democratic republic by attacking one of the things that matters most to our form of government. The right to interact with those we elect to hold them accountable, as well as to gain their assistance, but also to thank them when good service is delivered and teach new generations about how it all works.

Loughner’s violence was an unprovoked, nonsensical, violent assault on our form of representative democracy. The shock of it is so intense and petrifying that it could scare people away from ever engaging again. The thought of this happening again terrifies people, making them afraid to participate.

“There is nothing patriotic about hating your government, or pretending you can hate your government but love your country.” (President Bill Clinton, May 6, 1995, after the bombing of the federal building at Oklahoma City and murder of 168 people.)

Speaker John Boehner said “an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.” He’s correct.

POLITICO describes it today as “the bloodiest attack on a federally elected official in decades.”

When someone threatens our way of life and how this democratic republic operates, with all it’s flaws, there’s only one name to call the crime committed.

It is domestic terrorism.

Read full story · Comments { 44 }

Who Are You Going to Believe ‘Survey Symbols,’ or Your Lying Eyes?

By Taylor Marsh on 10 January 2011

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times stated on “Daily Rundown” (see video) today that an “unofficial adviser” to Sarah Palin, also mentioning “supporters,” have told him that former Gov. Palin needs to speak out on the Arizona domestic terrorism tragedy. Not in a tweet or a Facebook post, but in an address.

Now, “unofficial adviser” is a laughable source, but what isn’t funny is that there are Sarah Palin supporters talking to Zeleny believing Sarah Palin must stand up.

It would also be hilarious if this wasn’t so deadly serious that Palin’s supporters and in the Tea Party now want everyone to believe that “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric and her crosshairs poster was actually about surveying opponents, naming Rep. Gabrielle Giffords specifically to be surveyed.

It defies belief. The overexercised graphic contortions evidence of the Right’s panic. Palin herself tweeted they were “bullseye” graphics, which for you non gun owners is the same as saying crosshairs.

What people defending Sarah Palin’s crosshairs graphic don’t get is that it’s not that anyone thinks the former governor specifically inspired Loughner. It’s that Palin, with her “don’t retreat, reload,” rhetoric perfectly symbolizes the collision of politically charged gun invocations with an atmosphere that’s manifested Tea Party activists showing up at political rallies with holstered weapons on their hip. The final cry of crescendo coming in Arizona, a state whose own governor has fueled suspicion and hatred of brown people, and a general mistrust for government, while championing states’ rights over a united America.

Alex Parene’s post on “Watering the Tree of Liberty” has a seminal graphic, which was the basis of my article earlier today.

Having been the first to write about what former Gov. Sarah Palin’s crosshairs “targeting” campaign could cost her politically in the wake of the weekend tragedy, others now following, the advice for her to speak out is sound. In fact, it could turn the entire situation around for her. But is she big enough to step up? We should all hope the answer to this is yes, but as you see by the unbelievable “survey graphics” push back, it’s unlikely.

If the Republican establishment has anything to do with it, the crosshairs poster and the “targeting” of Giffords, will be Palin’s undoing.

Big Government’s Dana Loesch chose the full back flip defense through a graphic “survey symbols” tour de farce, as shown in the screen captures on this page. I’m afraid all she accomplished was revealing her Tea Party panic.

But you can be sure where there’s panic on the Right someone will soon have to pay for it.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona didn’t waste any time going after Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, which Fox News quickly turned into a screaming headline: Pima County Sheriff Sets Off Debate on Price of Free Speech. Fox’s Megyn Kelly in an interview called Dupnik’s law enforcement judgment “speculation,” even if the sheriff’s assessment of his own county and state is based on his professional experience as a law enforcement officer.

Michelle Malkin is going after Dupnik too, as did Larry Elder on his radio show. Rush Limbaugh continued today the efforts, mocking Sheriff Dupnik, calling him “anti conservative” and “anti Republican” without any proof. He did this after demanding proof that Loughner was incited to his act of domestic terrorism, while denying there is no atmosphere in America that encouraged it, as Dupnik suggested was the case. In case you didn’t get what a right-wing campaign revving up against someone looks like this is it.

The screen capture to the left from Loesch is supposed to prove that the crosshairs in Palin’s graphic aren’t really what they are, but instead “survey symbols” as shown in the red drawings above. I asked my gun expert hubby what he thought of the defense and he laughed out loud.

Ms. Loesch and her boss Andrew Breitbart and others on the Tea Party Right are bending over backward to put a politician, Sarah Palin, above principles and what’s best for the American conversation going forward. The Tea Party created their movement, so if they want to kill it that’s up to them, too. I’d just advise Sarah Palin isn’t worth it, no politician is.

Oh, and just to prove irony isn’t dead. While Michelle Malkin squeals about the hatred on the Left, with others on the Right drawing false equivalencies, this graphic of Obama is prominently displayed on Malkin’s website.

Without hate the Right is speechless.

Read full story · Comments { 52 }

MLK Friend Jones: Time for Progressives to Reconsider Participation in Current System

By Art Pronin on 10 January 2011

Clarence B. Jones, attorney and speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King, writes in Huffington Post another great piece about progressives moving forward in the current political system. Jones was a major Obama supporter who, of late, has cooled to him. He knew real street fighters for the progressive cause as you will read below. People who fought, got beaten and even died in the streets for social justice.

With the Tea Party Congress- the most extreme conservative congress seen in a 100 years- he argues progressives and others take another look at their loyalties, how blind are those loyalties to things like parties and personalities, and asks for a raising of the bar for progressives before they participate in the 2012 election. This is some thought provoking stuff from someone who knows how and knew those who did know how to fight like hell for economic and social equality.

Jones:

…Concurrent with the seismic political change in the Speakership and membership of the House, several significant changes are also underway in the top political staff positions at the White House.
The next few weeks will provide a clearer picture as to the political and economic consequences of all of these developments on President Obama’s leadership and the likelihood of sustaining and/or increasing his domestic and foreign policy agenda for remaining two years of his first term as president.
The 112th Congress should be a wake-up call to independents, African-Americans and progressives. This requires realistic reconsideration, by many of the members of those groups, of their basic principles and core set of beliefs that define their political participation in electoral politics going forward.
We may be at an historic crossroad requiring some pause and reflection as to whether or not adherence to such principles and beliefs may be more important than “doing business as usual” with the customary allegiance and knee jerk “loyalty” to the current Democratic or Republican parties.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING A THIRD PARTY FOR 2012; only that progressives, African Americans and independents raise the bar for their active participation and continued support of President Obama or any other candidate for president in 2012. The actual and anticipated political agenda of the 112th Congress challenges us to revisit some of the political wisdom of progressive movements and leaders from the past.
I am sure many who read and blog on The Huffington Post and elsewhere have numerous persons and precedents they can describe and reference as part of such reconsideration and reflection. For me, one of my political heroes, along with Martin Luther King, Jr., was the legendary African-American labor leader, A. Phillip Randolph.
President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, Randolph was the chairman and one of the principal organizers of the August 28, 1963, March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. I remember him most, however, because of the political principles and philosophy he espoused for coalition building, as an essential prerequisite for achieving and exercising elective political power.
Politically astute, in referring to the options that African Americans had in the 1950s and 60s for participating in the two major parties, he said, we had “no permanent friends, nor permanent enemies; only permanent interests.”
He reminded us that your “friend” today, could be your political “enemy tomorrow.” What mattered was which political party or coalition partner served or was in the best “permanent interest” of African Americans.

Jones argues for a new higher level of requirement for participation in the party system. A raising of the bar if you will. He explains:

…the 112th Congress may be such a politically cataclysmic change in terms of the permanent interest of African Americans, progressive and independents that their survival and viability in the 2012 presidential election may require the development of a new paradigm of political participation in that election. A participation premised on the precinct-by-precinct commitment to the Randolph doctrine of “no permanent friends, nor permanent enemies; only permanent interests.”
In previous blogs I have reminded those who voted to elect President Obama that the Democratic Party, like the Republican and other third parties are, at the end of the day, only instruments and agencies for political change. If those instruments or agencies are not suitable or appropriate to effectively enact or defend programs embodying our core beliefs, then continued “loyalty” to such an “instrument” or “agency” would be politically self-destructive.
Members of the Tea Party in the midterm elections said, like the protagonist from the movie Network, that they are” mad as hell and are not going to take this anymore.”
When are African Americans, progressives and independents, in the tradition of A. Phillip Randolph, going to say not only that they are “mad as hell,” but they will no longer go along to get along in the Democratic Party unless the leadership of that party responds to, not disdains, but honors and protects their “permanent interests”?

Critical days lie ahead for movement progressives.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Call Me When a Lefty Takes a Gun to A Political Rally

By Taylor Marsh on 10 January 2011

The Right doesn’t like feeling the intense heat of the blow back. Case in point, Glenn Reynolds writing in the Wall Street Journal, who luckily gets a rhetorical lifeline from Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz:

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

Howie Kurtz is going with the “lone nut” theory and is just so tired of all the whining about violent rhetoric, ignoring that it’s backed up by gun toting activists, all of whom are being told that Barack Obama is ruining their country, because he’s a socialist or un-American, all at a time of economic angst.

As for Byron York’s claim that everyone tip toed around Maj. Nidal Hasan’s religious affiliations after he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” and went on a domestic terrorist rampage inside a military base. Our entire aviation experience in this country revolves around the what ifs? of a post 9/11 contastrope at the hands of Saudi Arabians. Who’s York kidding?

Even establishment Republicans are so freaked they’ll get targeted by the Right’s fire that they won’t even speak on the record about an assassination attempt that ended in an act of domestic terrorism so intense it could change political participation by the American people. From POLITICO yesterday:

A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans. “There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

Who is “a senior Republican” afraid of inciting? Take a guess.

And the last time I looked Moulitsas wasn’t simultaneously squealing “don’t retreat, reload,” while on weekends being filmed attempting to kill a caribou. The only missing element being Yee-HA!

When I think of Barack Obama yielding a gun all I get is a painful picture of him bowling bouncing around in my head. No offense intended, really, he just doesn’t seem like a gun guy that’s all and he’s not suffering because he isn’t. His whole persona is non-violent.

Kurtz and others leave out the constant fearmongering in the economic climate we’re in and that Rush, Beck, Hannity, Mark Levine and the right-wing radio umbrella under which the entire country is locked never shuts up about the grievous wounds happening to every listener, all because of Democrats.

The fearmongering of the Right, aided by a complicit press, who thought it was all just so silly to think that Pres. George W. Bush would lie about anything to take us into preemptive war and change the foreign policy of America, is how we ended up in Iraq spending billions of dollars a month.

Sarah Palin’s crosshairs target poster didn’t start this nightmare. But it was the tipping point of not taking this anymore, because one of the people she targeted was almost assassinated.

Evidently Gene, Howie, Byron and Palin think this is all some remarkable coincidence.

It’s not.

There is also absolutely no equivalency anywhere on the Left to what right-wing radio spews and some of what goes on during Fox News shows, excluding Shep Smith and a few others.

After Loughner’s assassination attempt, Keith Olbermann went so far as to apologize back into the 2008 primaries regarding something he said about Hillary Clinton.

Did anyone on the Right come close to this?

Quite the opposite, they’re digging in.

We have news organizations who won’t call an act of domestic terrorism for what it is.

This would never have happened in the day of Cronkite, let alone Edward R. Murrow.

We wouldn’t be hearing calm down it’s not anyone’s fault in the day of Chet Huntley.

Act after act and we’re still supposed to stay on the notion of the “lone nut,” according to Mr. Kurtz. Even by his posts count that’s a lot of lone nuttery.

There’s also the notion being floated by Andrew Breitbart that the Left wants to wipe out the Tea Party, which seems immaturely offered and not thought through at all. It’s just the fastest thing he could come up with after the hail storm of criticism. The Tea Party just might be friendlier to the Left’s ability to stop the war in Afghanistan, as well as cut the Pentagon budget. They sure as hell look more promising than the Blue Dogs.

No one wants to destroy the Tea Party, we just don’t want people killed for believing in health care or a different immigration policy, even the right for women to be equally free as men, without being called a “terrorist” and being stalked.

But we’re a tortoise nation, with the Kurtz crowd preferring to hide back in the national shell so as not to have to deal with anything too directly. So, be ready for the usual suspects to opine about the irresponsibility of assigning blame. “That both sides are guilty.” Just don’t believe it.

The worst you’re going to get from most people on the Left is rudeness and maybe in some cases some eviscerating truth wrapped in high voltage rhetoric. No, it’s not always pretty, but nobody’s going to die from it, because the Left doesn’t go to political rallies packing heat.

Read full story · Comments { 81 }

Rep. Giffords: ‘We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list.’

By Taylor Marsh on 09 January 2011

–updated below–

“At a time like this, it is terrible that we do have to think about politics, but no matter what the shooter’s motivations were, the left is going to blame this on the Tea Party movement,” Mr. Phillips, from Tea Party Nation, said on his Web site. “While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing,” he wrote. “Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone and not used for political gain.” – Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics

In a poetry class Jared Lee Loughner was taking, when a woman read a poem about abortion, Loughner called her a “terrorist for killing the baby,” according to reports quoting a 58 year-old man who sat two desks away from him. Caitie Parker said Loughner was “left wing, quite liberal” and described him as a “political radical,” who met Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, calling her “stupid & unintelligent.”

It’s hard to imagine a “left wing, quite liberal… political radical” calling a woman a “terrorist” for making a legal personal decision that is no one elses business.

It is offensive to hear equivalency made between Left and Right on the issue of hate speech and inciteful violent rhetoric, because it’s untrue. It’s equally untrue to blame all people on the Right. As you can see in the video, there are responsible conservatives out there, but we know the ones who are not, many of whom reside on right-wing radio.

Federal Judge John Roll who was murdered yesterday, with other victims that also break your heart, has been under 24-hour guard, because of his involvement in the immigration debate.

To read Phillips from Tea Party Nation above decry talking about the political element as if it’s not part of the equation is insulting and an obfuscation to make people who want to talk about the obvious political targeting of Giffords feel guilty. The people in this country who are partially responsible for what’s been brewing in this country for well over a year need to be called out plainly.

Left wing liberals don’t go to political rallies with guns strapped to their leg. They don’t make villains out of people who want sensible gun laws and don’t think weapons have any place at a political rally, which includes gun owners like my husband and myself. We also believe a concealed carry permit comes with responsibilities that are very serious as well.

There isn’t one liberal politician who would dare put crosshairs on opponents in a poster in a “It’s time to take a stand” campaign. Only Sarah Palin did that and she did it with pride and bravado.

Jane Hamsher revealed that Gabrielle Gifford’s general election opponent, Jesse Kelly, was unmoved by Sarah Palin’s “target list” campaign. In fact, Kelly did Palin one better or in this case worse.

Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly.

That the specific incitement in this instance is coming from Sarah Palin, a star female politician from the Tea Party Right must not go unnoticed, especially when it sends a signal it’s okay for others to follow that lead. The transferred machismo to a female in order for her to appear tough enough to take on anything a man can hangle by utilizing inciteful rhetoric and campaigns is exactly the wrong message to send, because it raises the bar above and beyond what any democratic republic should tolerate. I’ve written about macho rhetoric in female politicians before.

Gabrielle Gifford understood the incitement going on and knew the dangers of it.

“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.” – Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics

Mrs. Palin made a horrible mistake with her “It’s time to take a stand” campaign that targeted lawmakers with crosshairs. She was called on it, but chose to be defiant. “Don’t retreat, reload” is a constant mantra of Palin. Of course, she didn’t cause Jared Loughner to go on a murderous rampage. He did that on his own, whether out of rage, frustration or desperation, even mania, we do not know. But there can be no doubt that Sarah Palin is the leader of a group of people who have for a very long time made anger a political tool, using this most powerful of emotions to flood the airwaves with hate and using the Second Amendment to do it. Sharron Angle floated “Second Amendment remedies” during the midterms, yet another woman trying to channel power through rhetorical scattershot screeds.

“But I think the way some Republicans are handling this is nothing more than purely despicable,” Hasselbeck said. The names that are next to and being highlighted by those crosshairs — I think it’s an abuse of the Second Amendment. I also feel as though every single person on here is a mother, a father, a friend, a brother, a sister, and to take it to this level is — it’s disappointing to see this come from the Party, and I would hope that leaders like Sarah Palin would end this.” – conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck (quote from the video above)

With the presidential election season gearing up, the buzz around whether Palin might run remains high. However, the midterms are long over and she has to prove herself beyond the base and an off-year election that had hyper partisan voters coming out in droves. Since 2011 dawned, Sarah’s problem is front and center. The Republican establishment has started a concerted effort against her, speaking out to oppose her, regardless of her persona and people power. Many influential conservatives from Joe Scarborough to George Will and Charles Krauthammer voicing she cannot be elected president even if the base loves her.

Now Republican intellectuals have got a powerful weapon to use against Sarah Palin, which they may not even have to invoke, because it’s unlikely people will forget. Sarah’s own flawed judgment that comes with graphics and an act of domestic terrorism in the state of Arizona that killed people and gravely wounded a Democratic congresswoman who was one of the politicians in Palin’s crosshairs.

UPDATE:

.. Evidence seized from Mr. Loughner’s home indicated that he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, according to documents filed in the Federal District Court in Phoenix. Found in a safe in Mr. Loughner’s home, about five miles from the shooting scene, Special Agent Tony M. Taylor Jr. of the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in an affidavit, was an envelope with these handwritten words: ”I planned ahead,” “My assassination” and “Giffords.” – Federal Charges Cite Assassination Plan

Originally posted at 1:00 a.m.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Queer Talk: Palin Retweets in Support of Gays?

By Joyce Arnold on 09 January 2011

First, a quick thanks to Taylor for the invitation to join other guest bloggers here at TM. I’m appreciative of the opportunity, and look forward to conversation.

Framing. Ideology. Perspective. Or maybe, bias. It’s very much in the eye of the tweeter reader.

Last Tuesday (January 4) Sarah Palin retweeted a comment by conservative radio host Tammy Bruce (who is “openly” lesbian, and chairs the advisory board of GOProud, a pro-gay rights Republican group). Bruce’s original tweet referred to Owen Honors, the captain of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise who was relieved of that command Tuesday when a part of his past commandery actions came to light. A few years ago, while second-in-command, Honors was responsible for a series of videos described variously as “offensive,” “lewd” and “ribald,” and shown on the ship’s closed-circuit television system. The video skits, in which Honors frequently participated, were said to have been made to relieve boredom and boost morale, which apparently required much sexual innuendo, straight and gay.

So, Bruce reads about Honors and the gay jabs (as someone described them), considering her own support for the repeal of DADT, and sends this tweet:“But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already – the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed.” (Or under the bus?)

Palin retweets, and with it came almost immediate speculation about what she meant — was it a tacit endorsement of the repeal of DADT? Was it a “having it both ways,” able to say she’d forwarded something that supported repeal, while also maintaining her ability to truthfully say she hadn’t said that at all? Or maybe she didn’t read carefully, and wasn’t aware what she was sending to her tweeter followers. Whatever, the incident raised questions on both left and right, and provides yet another example of something about the power of framing.

Palin is conservative. Repeal of DADT is liberal / progressive. That’s what our either / or political and ideological framing tells us, at least. When one’s ideology values tradition, customs and conventions, and the stability and maintenance of the same, it isn’t absolutely necessary, but examples abound to tell us it isn’t unusual, either, to resist what appears to challenge the comfortable status quo. When one’s ideology values needed reform, transformation, updates, and change, then it isn’t unusual to see that, in fact, the status of the quo needs to be challenged. Just because something “was” and “is” doesn’t necessarily mean it “should be,” forever and ever. Of course, it also doesn’t mean there aren’t ideas and beliefs of lasting value, either. But how “change” is understood makes a difference.

I acknowledge, those are generalized and simplistic “definitions,” and that those who hold both perspectives will have differing interpretations. I doubt there is any ambiguity about my own take on each, as I am certain the liberal perspective which frames what I see is quite obvious.

But given generalities, and back to Palin’s retweet: forwarding the pro-DADT-repeal is one example of how the world of Queerdom (as well as other “different” groups) is often viewed, and framed, and acted upon. In my own liberal persuasion, what I hear, and what I’ve experienced, from many (not all) of the conservative persuasion – especially among the more vocal — lets me know I, as a lesbian, am not a part of their comfortable status quo framing of equal rights.

That’s changing in some significant ways, actually. Polls show more and more people are supportive of LGBT rights. But whatever the specific focus, when “tradition” is challenged and stability shaken, a common response is to retreat into the safety of the known, and not infrequently, to attack the unknown “different.”

After Palin retweeted Bruce’s message, and the questions began, Bruce followed up, tweeting, “I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor.” Followed by, “I know Gov Palin & this ‘anti-gay’ meme has been a lie–plain & simple. She’s a decent woman & friend to the community.”

What Palin actually thinks about DADT, and Queerdom in general, is unclear. The Washington Post reports that in February of 2010, in a Fox News interview, “she said she was surprised that President Obama was pushing to repeal the ban – but she never condemned his position on the substance. ‘There are other things to be worried about right now with the military,’ Palin said. ‘I think that kind of on the back burner’” (a position familiar to many whose needs don’t match those of the Elites).

Bruce also said she thought Palin’s retweet was aimed at the conservative groups choosing not to attend the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference because GOProud is a sponsor. A clearly conservative opinion was offered by Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, which is one of those not attending the CPAC. He hedges: “I doubt if she has changed her position, but if she has, she will have lost a large base of her support.” He speculated, though, that Palin “opposes the ‘homosexual agenda’ in general.

The LesbianConservative had a rather different view: “The fact that such a major event like CPAC has welcomed a gay organization should serve clear notice on the virulent anti-gay wing of the conservative movement. Homosexuality can no longer continue to be the bugbear of US conservatism.”

From Dennis Ayers at AfterEllen.com, we see a progressive kind of hopefulness: “This is great for the GLBT community I think, because … it advances that meme amongst her conservative fanbase that the vocally anti-gay probably have something of their own to hide.”

Andrew Belonsky, at Change.org writes that “Gawker’s Max Read was right on the money when he wrote, ‘Palin is not, in the context of her party, rabidly homophobic.’ But if Palin ‘truly wants to win over the LGBT set, she needs to take action — and, contrary to popular opinion, a re-tweet is not ‘action’– by actively opposing her party’s entrenched homophobia and discrimination …”

John Aravosis, at AmericanBlog, was as clear in his own assessment of Palin as he was in his assessment of this incident. “Yes, she’s an idiot. But she’s also a powerful leader in the GOP. This is important.”

I haven’t seen anything linking the Palin Retweet to this, but a couple of days later John McCain said of the DADT repeal, “I think I have to do everything I can to make sure that the [impact on the] morale, retention, recruitment and battle effectiveness of the military is minimized as much as possible.” Not a ringing endorsement of repeal, but perhaps a recognition that things are changing. A very much resisted, disliked, and apparently frightening change, but a tiny move out of the comfortableness of “this is how things are, should and forever shall be.”

Without uttering a word herself, Palin generated yet another conservative / liberal conversation. Or rather, another round of mostly internal conservative conversations and liberal conversations. That’s not to say there is internal agreement in either group. But as Aravosis writes, “This is important.” Palin’s is a voice that is heard by a lot of people, and whether she does or doesn’t support the repeal of DADT the retweet served to nudge some of the right to state their support for change. Of course it also nudged others to repeat “homosexual agenda” claims as if those claims are as sacred to them as the Bible, Constitution and totally straight Founding Fathers.

Interestingly, Bruce says she’s never asked Palin about her DADT views. Maybe that’s another instance of “I won’t ask so you don’t have to tell and upset anyone” kind of thing. No doubt, though, Palin will be asked, and by now, may have been and I haven’t seen it. But my liberal leanings yearn for answers and actions, so for what it’s worth: Gov. Palin, should DADT be repealed? Or better yet, should Queerdom residents have equal rights? If so, why? If not, why? And in either case, what actions will you take (beyond a tweet)?

As I said earlier, how you understand “change” is important. For me, and liberally speaking, a change for the good requires a bigger picture view, including the big picture view of the entire Constitution, not just bits and pieces. A “change for the general welfare” kind of good.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By Stacy on 09 January 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, January 9th 1788, Connecticut became the fifth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a run-down of who will be on the Sunday talk shows.

Have some links:

~By now every single person has heard of the horrific tragedy that took place yesterday in Arizona. There really aren’t words to adequately describe the senselessness of the killing. Hopefully Gabriella Gifford will make a full recovery but there were others who died on the scene, and my thoughts and prayers are with their family and friends.

~We now have a name and a face to go with the shooter, who may not have acted alone- we just don’t know at this point. The Tuscon sheriff perhaps said it best when he said yesterday, with a clear look of frustration and even sadness, that Arizona had become a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

~Taylor wrote about this yesterday, but I think it bears repeating again. The use of violent imagery and rhetoric by the right is unacceptable and has consequences- and those that use the rhetoric know it. Who is responsible for the deaths and injuries yesterday? Jared Lee Loughner. But lets not pretend that the violent symbolism and gun-rhetoric from right-wing politicians is all just a coincidence. Just as the despicable Southern Strategy is like a dog whistle for racists and anti-Semites, the thinly-veiled fear-mongering and use of language such as “overthrow,” “second amendment remedies,” “lock and load” etc. is meant to whip people up into an angry frenzy and we shouldn’t all act shocked, shocked, when someone acts on it.

Exhibit A:

As most know by now, Sarah Palin effectively used Facebook and Twitter to call attention to her political hit list for the 2010 midterm elections (image above). Palin provided a map of the United States with a gun crosshair over each of the states of Democrats that she was targeting. Palin’s use of the words “reload”, “aim” and “fire” on her Facebook page when discussing the above strategy was irresponsible. Is Palin responsible for the violent acts of others? No, but again, I do not accept that the overheated rhetoric of the right since Obama’s election is totally benign. Lets see who will step up to the plate among the conservative pundits and GOP leadership and call for the rhetoric to be toned down- will it be Boehner? Limbaugh? Beck? Fox and Friends? Or will all of the above simply revert to defensive mode and lambast liberals for daring to point out the obvious? The problem for the far right is that it isn’t just liberals who are asking hard questions right about now.

~Ok, other stories in the news: The GOP made a bunch of budget promises that they have absolutely no intention of keeping.

~Team Obama hoping to shed their boys-club image with their new press secretary pick? Oh please, they can’t help themselves. Here’s some free advice to Obama- select someone who is a) an adult, b) not thin-skinned, c) doesn’t hate the democratic base and d) actually knows how to deliver a message.

~Along those same lines, Frank Rich is hoping that Obama’s vacation reading of a biography of Ronald Reagan results in Obama learning a few lessons about communicating and governing.

~The U.S. has upped the ante in its battle against WikiLeaks, having reportedly issued a subpoena for the organization’s Twitter account.

~Southern Sudan’s referendum begins today and spates of violence have broken out in the run-up to the vote.

~Israel’s retiring Mossad chief has turned back the clock on Iran’s nuclear abilities. Trying to predict when Iran will have a nuclear weapon has been something of a political parlor game for almost two decades. For a sobering list of how often US, Israeli and British officials (and others) over the past two decades have predicted Iran is two or three years from full nuclear weapons capability, see here.

~Along those lines, David Ignatius has a more thorough take on how Stuxnet, other sabotage methods and sanctions have slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. This provides a bit of breathing room for Team Obama and other nations who are trying to work out a non-military solution.

~Secretary Gates aims to cut military health spending much to the annoyance of hypocritical deficit hawks on the Hill. Some have read between the lines and noted that Secretary Gates has been playing word games with his “defense cuts” talk, which previously amounted only to a reshuffling of funds from one area of the DoD to another- in other words, they weren’t really “cuts” as the average person understands them. Now with Jacob Lew as head of the OMB, things might get a bit trickier for Gates. Even the NYT has joined in and criticized Gates for not making the defense cuts more substantial.

~Iraq is a huge success isn’t it? Thank goodness that despot Saddam is gone.

~The son of the assassinated Punjab Governor, Salmaan Taseer, wrote an op-ed in the NYT yesterday that is worth a read.

~According to a new report, the West German security service knew about the assumed name and whereabouts of Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler’s key architects of the Final Solution. Apparently they knew about his location almost a decade before he was captured by Israel and put on trial (and sentenced to death). Strangely, Germany did not pass along the information to, well, anyone.

~It’s not just Hamas that was making money (in bribes) off the Gaza blockade.

~Golly gee, no second season for Palin’s reality show? Maybe she just needs some time to beef up on her gun-handling skills before heading back to kill some animals that CLEARLY had it coming. Can I just say that after that episode where she acted like a prima donna and had her father carry her rifle and she generally acted like she had never handled a gun before (“does it kick?”), her show lost a lot of credibility, even among some of her followers.

~One of Blackwater/Xe’s latest iterations has won yet ANOTHER State Dept. contract, which is beyond disappointing. What’s rather unclear to me is why the State Dept. hired them to provide security in the occupied West Bank?

~The State Dept. is trying not to antagonize the right-wing members of Congress and has shifted course on a bureaucratic change to how it refers to parents. Apparently they had been ready to make a change to using gender-neutral terms instead of “mother” and “father” in an attempt to be more inclusive. That upset the righties because, well, even symbolic progress upsets them.

~Environmentalists are none too pleased with British Prime Minister Cameron. It looks like the new Tory party is a lot like the old Tory party, despite Cameron’s pre-election re-branding efforts.

~The political turmoil in Haiti continues and the State Department has indicated that it might be willing to shift its policy and support an election do-over depending on the findings of investigations looking into allegations of election fraud.

The End.

[Cross-posted over at Secretary Clinton Blog]

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Dem Congresswoman Giffords, 6 Others Shot by Gunman in Arizona

By Art Pronin on 08 January 2011

–updated below–

This morning, in an unspeakable tragedy, a number of Americans were shot in Tuscon, Arizona, at a constituent meeting with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. And while we are continuing to receive information, we know that some have passed away, and that Representative Giffords is gravely wounded. We do not yet have all the answers. What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society. I ask all Americans to join me and Michelle in keeping Representative Giffords, the victims of this tragedy, and their families in our prayers. – Pres. Barack Obama

More at Huffington Post

Democratic Congresswoman Giffords was reportedly shot and killed, along with 6 others. However, other reports, including her spokesperson, say she’s in surgery. Clearly there is confusion all ’round at this point.

From NPR:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman at a public event in Tucson on Saturday. There are conflicting reports about whether she was killed.
The Pima County, Ariz., sheriff’s office told member station KJZZ the 40-year-old Democrat was killed. At least nine other people, including members of her staff, were injured.
Giffords, who was re-elected to a third term in November, was hosting a “Congress on Your Corner” event at a Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.

Giffords was among several lawmakers harassed for supporting the healthcare bill.

SarahPalinPac “targeted” Giffords in their “It’s time to take a stand” campaign. SarahPalinPac servers were down and the target graphic has been scrubbed from the website. On Facebook, Mrs. Palin has issued a statement, with comments negative comments finally being deleted, though not fast enough. This ~~deleted~~ tweet from Sarah Palin is part of the problem.

UPDATE 1: MSNBC reports Rep. Giffords pulled through surgery, expected to survive. Jared Loughner 22 year-old gunman in custody.

UPDATE 2: Two others now sought by law enforcement in AZ on shootings.

UPDATE 3: This YouTube is allegedly Jared Loughner’s creation. It’s quite weird, to say the least.

UPDATED 4: From HuffPo’s Stein:

The most illustrative window is Loughner’s YouTube account, which appears to be hub of anti-government zealotry, obsession over currency and language standards, and, to put it bluntly, outright paranoia.
“In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he writes in one video posting. “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver! No! I won’t trust in God!”Here is a link to Loughner’s YouTube site.
There are also some biographical details that can be culled from the page. Loughner attended Mountain View High School, Northwest Aztec Middle College, and Pima Community College. He also appears to have been in the armed forces, at one point in time.
“Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests,” he writes in one video. “Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.”

UPDATE 5: BECK ON 1/4 TELLS HIS VIEWERS THIS:

We cannot as a nation survive much longer. We must take a page from our own history at the Alamo and “draw a line in the sand.” We must decide who we are, what we are capable of and look to the heavens to chart our course.

UPDATE 6: SEN MCCAIN ISSUES POTENT STATEMENT:

“I am horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. I pray for Gabby and the other victims, and for the repose of the souls of the dead and comfort for their families. I beg our loving Creator to spare the lives of those who are still alive, heal them in body and spirit, and return them to their loved ones.
“Whoever did this; whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.”

UPDATE 7: FED JUDGE ROLL APPOINTED BY BUSH IN 1991 AMONG THE DEAD.

U.S. Marshal for Arizona David Gonzales confirmed to the Associated Press that the U.S. District Judge had died. He offered no other details on the shooting.
Arizona Central talked to Gonzales in 2009 after Roll allowed a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit to proceed against a local rancher. The case was filed by illegal immigrants and drew the ire of local talk radio hosts, who “spurred audiences into making threats.”
In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.
“They said, ‘We should kill him. He should be dead,’ ” Gonzales said.

UPDATED 8: Official picture from the Situation Room, the first with William Daley present:

TM.COM NOTE: This post has been edited from Texan4Hillary’s “In the News” original post, additional text provided by Taylor Marsh; updates by Texan4Hillary.

Read full story · Comments { 68 }

My $0.02: the Mona Lisa and War on Poverty edition

By Wonk the Vote on 08 January 2011

Photograph: Gianni Dagli Orti/Corbis

Good morning, news junkies! My Saturday offerings, hot off the presses…

On this day, January 8th, in 1962, the Mona Lisa was exhibited in Washington, marking the first time it was shown in America. From the link, which goes to the History Channel website: “Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and Andre Malraux, the French minister of culture, arranged the loan of the painting from the Louvre Museum in Paris to the United States.”

You may have caught the following story on the Mona Lisa from December, but in case you didn’t… From Tom Kington in the Guardian: “Mona Lisa’s eyes may reveal model’s identity, expert claims… Silvano Vinceti claims initials – possibly the model’s – are discernible in the left eye of the iconic Da Vinci painting.” Stephen Bayley wrote a piece in the UK Telegraph on this story as well called, “Mona Lisa: Leonardo was a genius, let’s leave it at that.“

Another piece of historical trivia for January 8th… In 1964, LBJ declared a “War on Poverty” in the US. (Link takes you to an essay hosted on blackpast.org.)

Who has taken up the call to fight the war on poverty today? Hillary spoke of and to “invisible” Americans when she ran in 2008, but the powers-that-be railroaded her and kept her powerful voice off the domestic stage. John Edwards tainted his “Two Americas” rhetoric on poverty with his “narcissism,” as he himself characterized it. Elizabeth Edwards, who was the genuine advocate for the least of these in that power couple, is no longer with us, though she left behind a body of thoughtful writings and interviews to guide us, much in the way she wrote a journal to her children. The other Liz–Elizabeth Warren–is fighting for us, but her hands appear to be tied.

Every day of this Administration that President Obama fails to govern for the people who elected him, he instead tries to win the approval of the corporations who will never openly adore him enough for all his efforts… because nothing he does for them will ever be enough. More and more, his former supporters are coming to realize that they endorsed an empty suit in 2008, which brings me to my first newsy item. From today’s NY Times: “Obama the Centrist Irks a Liberal Lion… ‘By freezing federal salaries, by talking about deficits, by extending the Bush tax cuts, he’s legitimizing a Republican narrative,’ Mr. Reich says. ‘Why won’t he tell the alternative story? For three decades we’ve cut taxes on the wealthy while real wages stood still.’”

I’ll answer Reich’s question with a question. When will the left understand that Obama fears and thus respects the Republican narrative and does not do the same when it comes to the liberal narrative? The so-called “caving” to Republicans is by design.

Bob Herbert has some good stuff covering the same ground today; I had a hunch he would: “Misery With Plenty of Company…Consider the extremes. President Obama is redesigning his administration to make it even friendlier toward big business and the megabanks, which is to say the rich, who flourish no matter what is going on with the economy in this country. (They flourish even when they’re hard at work destroying the economy.) Meanwhile, we hear not a word — not so much as a peep — about the poor, whose ranks are spreading like a wildfire in a drought.”

Indeed, but I’ll get off my rantbox for now. Here are some other headlines that struck a chord with me throughout the week…

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Frolic Into Boehnerland

By Taylor Marsh on 07 January 2011

… The Democrats have plenty of creatures like Boehner. But in the new Speaker of the House, the Republicans own the perfect archetype — the quintessential example of the kind of glad-handing, double-talking, K Street toady who has dominated the politics of both parties for decades. In sports, we talk about athletes who are the “total package,” and that term comes close to describing Boehner’s talent for perpetuating our corrupt and debt-addled status quo: He’s a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done. [...] – Matt Taibbi: The Crying Shame of John Boehner

Speaker Boehner’s speech upon being handed his giant gavel was pitch perfect politically. The tone was right, the sentiment softly spoken, with all the right notes hit. He referenced the economy, the “job-killing” Obamacare, and the debt. The stage was set for the new Congress.

Simultaneously, two ignorant Republican knuckleheads, Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), thought they could take their oath of office at a fundraiser via a TV screen. Geniuses these guys are not.

Then during the reading of the Constitution, a crazy birther’s head exploded while yelling “Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!” when Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) read the clause in the Constitution talking about “natural born citizen”. The woman’s name is Theresa Cao who has a history of this sort of insanity.

To press the point, a gaggle of Tea Partiers decided to challenge Pres. Obama’s citizenship, presidency and very right to live in the White House, making a mockery of the entire Congress and just how serious everything is in this country right now. When Brian Williams of NBC News asked Speaker Boehner about the bill he basically said it wasn’t his job to make his members act like adults.

Given all this you’d think Democrats would have it easy making the case that Republicans are as bad as they sound.

Unfortunately, Republicans always beat Democrats on messaging, because as William F. Buckley said, the point of conservatism is to oppose, which makes for easier sound bites. They’re effective at it too.

So, even as Democrats laugh at the nonsensical gibberish coming out of Republicans right now, especially on the repeal of health care, they should take note. There is something deeply disturbing about the Gallup number of 46% that want Obamacare repealed (40% do not). These numbers should trouble the White House a great deal. The unpopularity of the health care bill coupled with a Republican drum beat over the next two years could be a powerful tool against the President.

The White House senses the same thing, which is why Stephanie Cutler laid out their case for keeping health care intact. The Right can’t repeal it, though I’m not really sure they believe they can or want to succeed in doing so. The cry against the Democratic plan is only good as long as it’s in play and the Right wants it in play for 2012.

As for Democrats, their problem is they still don’t have a sound bite that can beat “job killing.”

People digest politics in quick gulps, which Republicans get.

Democrats speak in long sentences. It keeps Democrats on the defensive long after the Republicans have gained the advantage.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

New Census Report on Poverty Stuns, Galbraith Answers Austerity Fools

By Art Pronin on 07 January 2011

We got a poverty problem hitting levels unseen since before LBJ’s War on Poverty. A census report, using other factors to deem poverty numbers, shows 47 million Americans poor. The report is a potent argument against slashing the safety net. If the net is cut the poverty rate will go way higher. And in the next 2 years it’s likely this is what will happen, I fear.

Of special note, the elderly and disabled faces rising poverty rates due to Social Security not being enough to live on, the West is now at the top of impoverished regions of America, those on govt. insurance are seeing decreasing poverty while those on private insurance are more prone to become impoverished, and much more.

Here is an AP summary of the report’s findings, which you might want to send to all your friends when the austerity crows about slashing away:

WASHINGTON – The number of poor people in the U.S. is millions higher than previously known, with 1 in 6 Americans — many of them 65 and older — struggling in poverty due to rising medical care and other costs, according to preliminary census figures released Wednesday.
At the same time, government aid programs such as tax credits and food stamps kept many people out of poverty, helping to ensure the poverty rate did not balloon even higher during the recession in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office.
Under a new revised census formula, overall poverty in 2009 stood at 15.7 percent, or 47.8 million people. That’s compared to the official 2009 rate of 14.3 percent, or 43.6 million, that was reported by the Census Bureau last September.
Across all demographic groups, Americans 65 and older sustained the largest increases in poverty under the revised formula — nearly doubling to 16.1 percent. As a whole, working-age adults 18-64 also saw increases in poverty, as well as whites and Hispanics. Children, blacks and unmarried couples were less likely to be considered poor under the new measure.
Due to new adjustments for geographical variations in costs of living, people residing in the suburbs, the Northeast and West were the regions mostly likely to have poor people — nearly 1 in 5 in the West.
The new measure will not replace the official poverty rate but will be published alongside the traditional figure this fall as a “supplement” for federal agencies and state governments to determine anti-poverty policies. Economists have long criticized the official poverty measure as inadequate because it only includes pretax cash income and does not account for medical, transportation and work expenses….

The facts from this report are stunning and provide a strong argument against slashing the safety net.

Short’s analysis, published Wednesday as part of a series of census working papers on poverty, shows that out-of-pocket medical expenses had a significant impact in affecting the number of poor — without those costs, poverty would have dropped from 15.7 percent to 12.4 percent.
The effect was seen most notably among older Americans. Under the official poverty rate, about 8.9 percent lived in poverty, mostly because they benefit from Social Security cash payments. But when taking into account out-of-pocket medical expenses and other factors, that number rises to 16.1 percent.
The numbers cited for 2009 are preliminary, but census officials say they offer a good representative look at the state of U.S. poverty and where the numbers are headed when new 2010 figures are released this fall.
Among the findings:
_Transportation, commuting and child care costs weigh on working-age Americans. The official poverty rate for those ages 18 to 64 is currently 12.9 percent, the highest since 1960s levels that launched the war on poverty. Under the revised formula, working-age poverty increases even higher, to 14.8 percent.
_Without the earned income tax credit, the poverty rate under the revised formula would jump from 15.7 percent to 17.7 percent. The absence of food stamps separately would increase the poverty rate to 17.2 percent.
_Taking into account millions of uninsured people in the U.S. had little effect in increasing poverty, mostly because those without insurance tend to forgo medical care rather than find ways to pay for it. Those with government-sponsored insurance generally saw decreases in poverty under the new formula, while those with employer-provided coverage saw increases. Still overall poverty for those with public insurance vs. employer insurance was higher, 31.1 percent compared to 7.2 percent.
_Under the revised formula, the West had the most people in poverty at 19.2 percent. It was followed by the South (16.1 percent), the Northeast (14.3 percent) and the Midwest (12.5 percent).

Famed economist Galbraith weighs in also. Sure the rich are living longer, but not the poor. Making these cuts in the New Deal and Great Society help the rich and grow the numbers of the poor. He says cut the retirement age to 62, which would boost jobs. Just raise the payroll tax cap to those making more money. Raising the retirement age would actually further cripple America and stymie jobs.

Galbraith writes:

Such cuts have a perversely powerful logic: “We” are living longer. There are fewer workers to support each elderly person. Therefore “we” should work longer.
But in the first place, “we” are not living longer. Wealthier elderly are; the non-wealthy not so much. Raising the retirement age cuts benefits for those who can’t wait to retire and who often won’t live long. Meanwhile, richer people with soft jobs work on: For them, it’s an easy call. …

In the United States, the financial crisis has left the country with 11 million fewer jobs than Americans need now. No matter how aggressive the policy, we are not going to find 11 million new jobs soon. So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?
The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 — providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer.
A proposal like this could transform a miserable jobs picture into a tolerable one, at a single stroke.

Paging common sense in DC.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama Approval 50% While Dems Hit 22-Year Low

By Taylor Marsh on 07 January 2011

The United States economy ended the year by adding 103,000 jobs in December and with a lower unemployment rate, the Labor Department said Friday, but as thousands of Americans gave up looking for work, the numbers suggested that joblessness could continue to weigh on the recovery. The unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent last month from 9.8 percent, its lowest rate since July 2009, the department said in its monthly report. But the figures also showed that the civilian labor force declined by 260,000 in December, as many Americans stopped applying for jobs. – U.S. Added 103,000 Jobs Last Month

The good news is that Pres. Obama is ticking up in approval, however Gallup reports that a small majority (46% to 40%) want to repeal health care. The bad news is that it’s been down hill for the Democratic Party since 2008, with every year since Pres. Obama was elected, showing a decline in Democratic party identification culminating in the worst numbers in 22 years. Question is whether the identification matters to Democrats as long as Pres. Obama’s chances of getting a second term improve.

From Gallup:

In 2010, 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, down five percentage points from just two years ago and tied for the lowest annual average Gallup has measured in the last 22 years. While Democrats still outnumber Republicans by two points, the percentage identifying as independents increased to 38%, on the high end of what Gallup has measured in the last two decades.

Segue to the jobs number with the unemployment rate falling, though it’s unfortunately coupled with the reality that some Americans just gave up looking for jobs.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans remain below Democrats, with not much excitement on i.d., except for the Tea Party contingent, which was the only energy in the midterms, saving Republicans from themselves.

However, under Pres. Obama, OFA and Tim Kaine’s DNC, not only has there been no allegiance to Democratic Party messaging and values, it’s very hard to tell what Democrats stand for today, except compromise, capitulation and making deals with conservatives like extending the Bush tax cuts, all of which has taken Democrats to the right, but after midterms, also the country.

So, is anyone surprised that in the last 22 years there has never been a lower number of people who choose to identify with the Democratic Party? Nobody’s looking out for the working class, let alone the poor.

Obama’s signature legislative compromise on health care has yielded details coming due that won’t help him going forward. For one, and as Howard Dean and many of us predicted, the individual mandate continues to be a loser and energy for killing it is building, with Dems in trouble for ’12 supporting this action. Additionally, Blue Shield’s latest move in California is a stunner that will simply fuel conservatives’ marketing on their repeal efforts (even if they ultimately fail and have to settle for starving the program), with the new Speaker very likely to be a more formidable foe than originally anticipated. From the LA Times:

Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it’s Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1. … San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

However, all the capitulation has given Pres. Obama a 50% approval, because it’s easy to be liked when you’re not standing up and making waves. The new approval something the President hasn’t enjoyed in quite a while. The news of Bill Daley taking over as chief of staff will also push Wall Street to give the President another chance.

Meanwhile, the Democratic activist base and voters who believe in their message have never been more in the cold. Obama continuing to bet they’ll come home after seeing the alternative.

As things stand today, the Obama White House has absolutely no clue how to inspire economic growth or isn’t interested in economic fundamentals like trade policy and investments, with the Tea Party crowd and conservatives now in charge. Budget cuts and spending caps are fine, but as the party of no ideas, the Republicans, meets President Obama who hasn’t a plan, scapegoats for our economic ills abound. With the additions of Daley, but also Clinton consigliere Gene Sperling, hopes are that this will change, however, it will be with a twist for Democrats.

First Obama came for the federal unions, now Cuomo is coming after state workers, the chirpy call for more tax cuts the Democratic mantra. “Morning Joe” is now a cacophony of caterwauling about “rich” union employees. Ironic from a group who touted tax cuts for the rich as the answer. Even Joe Scarborough is ranting about “irresponsible” police unions in Newark, as Democratic Mayor Cory Booker asks them to suck up cuts. They’re risking their lives while the wealthiest get a tax cut, but Mr. Scarborough, who’s a nice, well meaning guy (I’ve had enough one-on-one exchanges to know this first hand) not only wants to demagogue cops, but calls them “irresponsible.” The economic confusion on “Morning Joe” is like watching a squirrel chase. The targeting of unions now the in thing to do on both sides of the aisle.

Want to bet that Obama and Republicans, with Daley’s help, come to a compromise on education?

Meanwhile, it was the best year ever for the Wall Street fat cats in 2010, the same people Pres. Obama and Democrats in both Houses handed tax cuts, while leaving the “99ers” out in the cold, some likely literally.

But that’s okay, because the Democratic Party isn’t Tim Kaine or Obama Inc.’s concern. They’re targeting Independents, Obama’s new base.

Pres. Obama is looking stronger as his reelection team gears up, no matter how tattered the Democratic Party is on purpose and principles.

Ambition and political ego knows no bounds, with the presidency the ultimate political prize that must be kept at all cost. There are simply too many think tanks, foundations and organizations sucking on this teat. Feeding the frenzy is Obama Inc., a political organization without a core ideological compass that never met a principle it wouldn’t compromise to win, something the Democratic Party idealists and activists have now seen first hand.

Hey, but if you’re not in power you can’t implement your policy priorities, right? The problem is that even when Pres. Obama had a full majority his first instinct was to make a conservative compromise without ever fighting for the ultimate before making a deal on the possible. It may keep Obama in power, but so far it’s done squat for the Democratic Party.

If it gives Pres. Obama a better chance at a second term, as the old saying goes, it will, however, be mission accomplished.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

« Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 Next »

TM MUST READS

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS
“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of [...]
U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt
The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of [...]
Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer
The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, [...]
Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats
The Colbert ReportGet More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive As much as our national media deserves [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
Mitt, Newt, that Guy Ron Paul, and Democratic Trouble
UPDATED Before we get to Iowa, something that’s not getting covered deserves mention, because it ties into the opposite [...]
The Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
Barack Obama, the Sane Republican
The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read. I am “uncommitted” [...]
Why Newt Committed The Cardinal Sin Among Conservatives
We should not expect Gingrich to understand this until he understands that his work for Freddie Mac was not, as [...]
The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears
WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came [...]
Obama’s Fight for Cordray Missing for Elizabeth Warren
“But the bottom line is that we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure [...]
Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues
**UPDATED** In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Chris Matthews: ‘There’s nothing to root for.’
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep
The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott [...]
Obama’s Lost Moon Shot on Energy
“… We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]
Getting that 1979 Feeling Again
It’s déjà vu all over again. via David Weigel Pres. Obama has never understood the incredible gift he was handed [...]

TM Connect

Barack Obama Reconnects

Connecticut, Vermont Move to Set Up Progressive Universal Healthcare

Heal This

Giffords ‘All There,’ Made ‘V’ Sign with Her Hand

Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Inspires Breitbart to Invoke Gang Rape

Sarah Palin Speaks from Some Undisclosed Facebook Location

The Ailes Edict

Robert Kuttner: Zero Hour Approaches on Social Security

Call it what it was: An Act of Domestic Terrorism

Who Are You Going to Believe ‘Survey Symbols,’ or Your Lying Eyes?

MLK Friend Jones: Time for Progressives to Reconsider Participation in Current System

Call Me When a Lefty Takes a Gun to A Political Rally

Rep. Giffords: ‘We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list.’

Queer Talk: Palin Retweets in Support of Gays?

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

Dem Congresswoman Giffords, 6 Others Shot by Gunman in Arizona

My $0.02: the Mona Lisa and War on Poverty edition

Frolic Into Boehnerland

New Census Report on Poverty Stuns, Galbraith Answers Austerity Fools

Obama Approval 50% While Dems Hit 22-Year Low

Tag Cloud

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TM MUST READS

New Media