TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

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

Archive | March, 2011

Is This the Dumbest 2012 Headline Yet?



Looking back to the 2008 election season we were fully geared up and Dems were fighting it out. Huckabee hasn’t declared yet, with Mitt Romney just now gearing up for his big money bomb.

But if you’re going to say Obama is on the ropes in Politico’s poll, then characterizing Sarah Palin’s troubles would be positively dismal: Sarah Palin trails Obama by 20 points, 54 percent to 34 percent.

Chris Christie is the best anti-Obama, but since he’s not running (he says) it hardly matters that he’s 6 back of the President.

For Obama to be “on the ropes” Republicans have to prove they can actually make a campaign about something besides gutting the middle class and women’s freedoms, drill baby drill, and xenophobia.

And no, little Timmy Pawlenty doesn’t fit the presidential bill, because he has to win Iowa and there’s just no way he will unless the Tea Party stars bail. When they do we’ll talk.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

‘Cut It or Shut It’ Tea Party, Bruce Springsteen and Chris Christie’s Cuts

Sean Hannity was squealing today on his radio show about Speaker John Boehner going “wobbly” on the budget. Throwing bones to his Tea Party listeners, I guess Hannity forgot that Democrats control the Senate and there’s a Democrat in the White House, too. Nothing like a circus in place of seriousness.

According to The Hill, “no more than a couple hundred people” showed up in Washington to push the Republicans on the budget talks being run by V.P. Joe Biden, with Rep. Michele Bachmann stating that cutting Planned Parenthood is non-negotiable.

Democrats are cutting non-discretionary spending after giving in on tax increases, satisfied with letting the poor take a hit, which amounts to allowing Republicans to win the round.

The “cut it or shut it” Tea Party crowd is setting up Speaker Boehner versus Rep. Eric Cantor narrative, who may take a stand against the boss, which would further ostracize Boehner, maybe even set the Speaker up for a Tea Party challenge.

Important to note, however, is that as the Tea Party yells about spending cuts, their money train continues to be revealed.

For one thing, quite a few of the congressional Tea Party darlings get farm subsidies. John Karl of ABC nailed them on GMA. Eliminating farm subsidies would be real cutting; $16 billion was spent in 2009, according to Karl, one-quarter of a trillion dollars in the last 15 years.

If politicians wanted to get serious we wouldn’t have a fiscal crisis. However, since they won’t it leaves the U.S. in a terrifying position, because there simply is no way these game show hosts pretending to be leaders want to do what’s necessary, which starts at the Pentagon and has absolutely nothing to do with stiffing the lower middle class.

Even Bruce Springsteen took on one of his biggest fans, Gov. Chris Christie, after The Boss read this article. Mr. Springsteen’s letter to the editor focuses on something few Democrats care about today.

These are voices that in our current climate are having a hard time being heard, not just in New Jersey, but nationally. Finally, your article shows that the cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years. I’m always glad to see my hometown newspaper covering these issues. – Bruce Springsteen

For the Tea Party “cut it or shut it” crowd, as well as politicians like Gov. Christie, these non-compassionate conservatives think longer, stronger boot straps are the answer. They’ll get applause from Rush.

Unfortunately, the Democrats aren’t showing another way, which begins with a surtax on mil-billionaires, then targeting glut at the Pentagon in a serious way, though you can’t do that and start another war.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Gingrich Has More Positions on Libya than He’s Had Wives!

Hey, that’s not me talking. It’s Sen. Rand Paul.

This is just too delicious.

PAUL: I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. (via Think Progress)

and it comes with video. Sen. Paul even bashes Fox News.


More, please.

As a bonus, Sen. Paul takes on Pres. Obama on Libya on the Senate floor. Consider this a bonus, because any time any senator, regardless of party affiliation, challenges an imperial presidency, which Barack Obama has now assumed, it deserves attention.



Read full story · Comments { 20 }

FAIRNESS: Investigate AARP, Then Investigate the NRA

Waaaaaaah—waaaaaaaaah–wah. The big bad AARP is beating us senseless with their huge numbers, so the Republican We’ll Show Them Report is out.

And Republican allies have come up with a scary title for AARP to rev up the Right: “AARP is the Death Star of American entitlements.” Through AARP the Right hopes to do a tricky bank shot over to Social Security and Medicare entitlement “reform,” also known as their get out the wingnut vote machine.

So they don’t call it “Hot Air” for nothing. However, Allahpundit’s squeal about AARP’s tax exempt status is very short-sighted. But hey, if the Right is coming for AARP on that score go for it. But let’s be consistent, shall we? Then the NRA should also be investigated for their 501 C 4 status. After all, it’s not like they aren’t pulling all sorts of shenanigans.



A “GOP Report.” Well, let’s get on this right away, Hot Air.

But let’s also take on the NRA on their corporate donations being used for election purposes, which would blow their tax status to smithereens:

Supporters of the carve-out will note—correctly—that NRA cannot take corporate funds specifically to spend on elections; this would void its exemption. But, everyone in politics is familiar with the wink and the nod. Corporations can give general revenue funds which will then free up NRA’s copious individual donor money from their 4+ million members for spending on elections—money they would not have otherwise spent.

I’m not a member of AARP or the NRA. We’re gun owners, my husband an expert on firearms, but I wouldn’t get caught being a part of the NRA, because their notorious mission basically boils down to irresponsible pimping of the gun industry, without any thought to responsibility.

As a side note, the White House set up this showdown with Republicans, while shielding the NRA, because of their support for the DISCLOSE Act, which allowed massive cover for the NRA. Blue Dogs like Heath Schuler made it possible:

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said…

The Right’s caterwauling about AARP is not only hypocritical, because their outrage is only toward an organization that’s big and effective, which they see as standing up for the health care law, ACA, but also because AARP has been investigated before, going back all the way to 1988.

A source who knows everything there is to know about tax status C 3, C 4, C 6 entities, including AARP, gave me a hand on understanding this stuff, because this subject is crazy complex. This headline going back to 1988 is a classic, but the article isn’t available online, so I’ve got a screen capture of it. The investigative piece that followed left nothing unturned.



A snippet of it is below:

Low dues bring prospects through the door, and the direct-mail maestros move in from there. AARP — which knows the names and addresses of more Americans than any other comparable organization in the U.S. — accounted for as much as 1.5% of the nonprofit third-class mail delivered last year. The volume of incoming mail is so massive that AARP has its own zip code: 20049. Some members report getting three pitch letters a month for AARP’s health insurance alone. The sell is a bit too hard for some. Mark Gilbert, 74, of Durham, N.C., quit AARP last year after eight years. ”They were always pushing some tour or insurance policy,” he says. ”Every week some fat packet would arrive promoting something. The insistence got to me.” The second wave in the marketing blitz is Modern Maturity and the AARP News Bulletin. In the most recent Modern Maturity, AARP and its commercial partners accounted for 35% of the paid advertising pages. (AARP also airs Modern Maturity Television, a weekly public-affairs show carried on 270 PBS channels.) Competing companies are not allowed to buy space in AARP publications, so members never find ads for any mutual funds, health insurance or mail-order pharmacy services other than AARP’s own. And despite a consumerist bent to many of AARP’s lobbying efforts, Modern Maturity publishing director Robert Wood says he cannot recall ever printing comparison-shopping articles that mentioned competitors. Says Wood: ”We aren’t Consumer Reports.” AARP’s other major marketing advantage is its nonprofit status. This does not mean that AARP cannot make money but rather that any earnings — called ”excess revenues” in nonprofit accounting jargon — must be spent to further the purposes of the association. AARP’s lawyers carefully construct each business agreement to ensure that no matter how great the proceeds to AARP, they remain tax-free. In recent years, large financial companies paid an average of 6.2% of their revenues in federal income taxes; applied to AARP’s business revenues, that percentage could yield taxes of more than $9 million. Instead, AARP paid no federal income taxes at all last year. The Internal Revenue Service generally allows a tax-exempt organization to avoid taxes on business income as long as the business is ”substantially related” to the group’s founding purpose. That permits AARP to keep a tax- free 4% ”administrative allowance” for collecting health insurance premiums and forwarding them to Prudential. Last year that fee came to $67 million. The tax exemption also applies to whatever interest the premiums earn while in AARP’s possession — $15 million in 1987. In its other businesses AARP typically receives a percentage of its partners’ gross revenues as royalties, which do not usually trigger any taxes for tax-exempt groups. The association last year brought in another $30 million tax-free this way. (That includes a small amount from the sale of 32 educational books, co-published by AARP and Scott Foresman & Co., which, like MONEY, is owned by Time Inc.) This strategy could be in jeopardy, however; a House Ways and Means subcommittee is expected to recommend that the tax break for royalty income be repealed. AARP’s nonprofit status qualifies its mailings for cut-rate postage. On average, AARP can churn out 74% more mail for the dollar than a for-profit, bulk-rate firm. The nonprofit postal rate is so low that the Postal Service loses an estimated $14 million a year serving AARP, a deficit made up by U.S. taxpayers. Less tangibly, nonprofit status lends AARP the aura of a charitable organization with purer motives than those of its competitors. As a result, AARP tends to inspire uncritical trust among its members. Paul Kerschner, AARP’s chief lobbyist from 1978 to 1983, recalls: ”The staff used to joke that the easiest way to become a millionaire would be to take out an ad in Modern Maturity saying, ‘AARP wants you to send me $100.’ ” Many AARP officials, like AARP members, tend to believe that their association holds to a higher standard than conventional corporations. Says former executive director Brickfield: ”AARP enters its ((commercial)) programs only after determining that they will be of special value to % members.” But it is not always possible to identify any special value to AARP’s programs. In some cases, in fact, more efficient for-profit competitors offer comparable services at lower prices. Nevertheless, AARP is unlikely to pull out of these programs. Even if the association were willing to forgo the income they produce, it is still bound by contracts with its business partners to continue offering all of its products, the mediocre as well as the excellent.

But let’s cut to the bone.

The Right wants an investigation of AARP for the same reasons it went after all the other groups that have members who support the Democratic Party. One of the most important organizations to women in this country, Planned Parenthood, is the latest. Now the Right wants to neuter an organization that aids the boomer crowd and senior citizens, because it’s working effectively for its members. AARP supports policy that its members support, not for the sake of helping itself, with all of the royalties it receives going back into their mission. This latest Republican target is about 2012 and elective cycle neutering of progressive interests, which is to further the lives of American citizens.

AARP is non-partisan, but they’re not stupid. There is no reason to only help one party over another, because their power comes from numbers not ideology and the only way you get numbers is to serve the most people, which isn’t going to happen if you push a political agenda over what’s good for the people you service.

That’s the reason Republicans also blew it trying to privatize Social Security. It wasn’t in the interest of the vast majority of people, so the Right lost trying to push their ideology.

Let’s just not pretend this is about anything other than politics. Otherwise let’s put the NRA and their massive money machine under a microscope too.

That high pitched scream you just heard is the soul of the Republican Party, which can’t survive without sucking on the NRA’s teat. Unfortunately, Democrats have also joined in on that party, which is why the DISCLOSE Act looks away from the NRA.

So, tomorrow the AARP folks will sit in front of Congress for a partisan tongue lashing and when it’s over they’ll go back to doing what they do best. Working for American people who benefit from power being in the numbers, not in pushing an ideology over what’s best for their lives.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

The Dynamic War Duo, Clinton and Obama

The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials. While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said. – C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels

Whether Congress approves Obama’s escalation for Libya that’s the road we’re on. We knew Obama was a fan of Reagan, but he didn’t have to go down the Contra-esque road to prove it.

As for where this leaves unconsulted Democrats, they’re stuck with this cold crap sandwich and have to swallow the reality that Obama doesn’t think much of Congress. But considering they’ve not done their equal branch job for a very long time no president today would respect them.

The position the progressive Left is in is as bad as it gets.

Nobody should be surprised about what we’ve learned today. It was inevitable. This post on the CIA being on the ground is in the weeds but worth it with a grain of salt applied, if only for the note to CIA Director Panetta that invokes “Samantha’s War for Virtue.”

As for Sec. Clinton, this is the second time she’s been as close to the presidency as you can get without being the president herself. She’s doing the heavy lifting for Pres. Obama, while he spends some very difficult moments ruminating about the colossal mess he’s gotten himself into and how serious it all is.

V.P. Biden may be Obama’s consigliere, but the President isn’t listening to him. It proves that Obama never intended the vice presidency to be anything close to what Cheney was to Bush, which means Clinton’s in the right spot for her personality and the job Obama needs her to do.

But even if Obama intends to employ the full weight of the presidency, Congress can still cause him trouble.

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy “A” team — led by Cabinet secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates — failed to quiet criticism of U.S. military action in Libya Wednesday during a pair of classified briefings on Capitol Hill. More than anything, the meetings served to underscore how little influence Congress has in shaping the war.Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates win no love on Capitol Hill

There’s no telling why Sec. Clinton now has the highest approval rating she’s had since ’99. But it could be because Pres. Obama’s leadership style is cool, distant and arrogant, while she comes off as a woman in charge, which is exactly where her boss has put her.

Libya has also aligned Obama and Clinton as tightly as a President and his Secretary of State can be.

No doubt Madeleine Albright is living vicariously through Clinton’s power. In her memoirs Ms. Albright hoists up a quote through a question to Colin Powell that is now legendary: “What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can’t use it?”

The biggest loser in all this is V.P. Joe Biden, the most experienced foreign policy hand within the range of Pres. Obama’s voice. But Biden was against ratcheting up in Afghanistan, so he sure wouldn’t buy into Libya. Looks like he’s two for two, though I doubt it gives him any comfort.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

A Moment of Irish-Scots Zen with Amb. Michael Oren


via Ben Smith

Considering I’m Irish-Scots, but have also been interested in Israel and the Middle East since I first became curious about Christianity, something that came long after I was baptized, well, I couldn’t resist this one.

That’s Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren and DGA Chairman Martin O’Malley playing in the band. You’ll also see a certain newscaster enjoying himself.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Since Arming Afghanistan Worked So Well, Why Not Libya?


UPDATED… REUTERS Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels. Also, Clinton said in a classified briefing to House members what I’ve already written, which is that Obama would have ignored any war resolution rebuffs and all attempts to inhibit executive power on Libya.

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday. Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter. Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

___________________ORIGINAL COLUMN BELOW______________

But some administration officials argue that supplying arms would further entangle the United States in a drawn-out civil war because the rebels would need to be trained to use any weapons, even relatively simple rifles and shoulder-fired anti-armor weapons. This could mean sending trainers. One official said the United States might simply let others supply the weapons. [...] It also carries echoes of previous American efforts to arm rebels, in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and elsewhere, many of which backfired. The United States has a deep, often unsuccessful, history of arming insurgencies. – Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is rationalizing that regardless of the arms embargo on Libya, the Obama administration could decide to arm the rebels, because the UNSC resolution has enough wiggle room to allow us to do it legally.

When people of my generation hear “trainers” we automatically think of Vietnam. But if trainers go in I guess the Obama administration can still say we have no “boots on the ground.” But it will be our trainers, because this goes well beyond the UN mandate.

Eli Lake is reporting “freelance jihadists” have now joined the Libyan “rebels” fighting Gadhafi’s forces.

Rebels have also now ceded territory they’d gained, with the only reason they won them in the first place being U.S. intervention, which will become more important as Gadhafi’s forces flex what power they have, which isn’t very impressive against the U.S.

If past is prologue, arming the Libyan rebels is a very bad idea.

However, now that Pres. Obama is committed he’s got little choice if this goes bad and Gadhafi starts surging. American prestige has been put on the line and with the 2012 election coming Pres. Obama cannot afford a loss of the rebels losing.

War is politics by another means, but you have to be committed when you let the dogs out. It’s even more important to know the territory and those willing to fight your adversary. That last criteria is why John Brennan, SecDef Gates and others were against this liberal interventionist misadventure, because these guys knew that a humanitarian crisis could actually spiral into something even uglier where U.S. interests, capital, and attention required are concerned.

Meanwhile, V.P. Joe Biden remains muzzled and mute.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

2012: New Polls Show Obama at New Lows




A new Quinnipiac poll has Pres. Obama at “all-time” lows.

American voters disapprove 48 – 42 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing and say 50 – 41 percent he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012, both all-time lows, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 46 – 46 percent job approval rating and a 45 – 47 percent split on the President’s re-election in a March 3 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, President Obama gets 36 percent of the vote to 37 percent for an unnamed Republican challenger.

Democrats approve 80 – 13 percent of the job Obama is doing, but disapproval is 81 – 9 percent among Republicans and 50 – 39 percent among independent voters. Men disapprove 52 – 41 percent while women split 44 – 44 percent.

You can see Gallup’s poll above. Since Obama came into office he’s been slowly losing the “strong and decisive leader” competition.

One reason Americans are less likely to see Obama as a “strong and decisive leader” is because he isn’t one. There’s just no other way to analyze him as president. Libya is the latest example. He refused to do what Clinton and other presidents have done and take to the Oval Office for an address to the nation, because it’s not his best venue. He just hasn’t mastered the setting.

On Libya, the other issue is that before he finally decided to make an address, he sent Sec. Clinton out to try to explain what was going on.

Pres. Obama is rarely out front fighting for causes he believes are important.

At present, it’s catching up with him.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Saving ‘Rawhide’

**UPDATED**



It came very close for “Rawhide,” Pres. Reagan’s Secret Service code name.

A remarkable report from CBS News adds to the history of this day.

At 2:27 pm EST, thirty years ago today, Pres. Ronald Reagan was shot and critically wounded, though the American public didn’t know how grievously at the time.

John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and is still confined, but is working hard to increase his unsupervised furloughs.

Hinckley’s visits to Williamsburg also trigger notification to Sarah Brady, whose husband James, was critically wounded during the assassination attempt. James Brady was the White House Press Secretary at the time. Sarah Brady is an alumna of the College of William and Mary.

“Every time he gets out for a 10-day period,” Davis quoted Sarah Brady saying of Hinckley, “I get a call so I know to not go to Williamsburg then. I love going there. But I obviously don’t want to cross paths with John Hinckley.”

Jim and Sarah Brady went on to be champions of gun control.

“If it hadn’t been for them, we would not have passed the Brady Law, and then the ban on assault weapons, and on cop-killer bullets…How many people are alive today because of Jim and Sarah Brady? How many? Countless.”

New audio recordings, which you can hear on the video above, reveal just how close Reagan came to having his life ended.

“I hope you’re all Republicans,” Reagan quipped with the GW trauma surgeons who saved his life. Their response: today we’re all Republicans.

The assassination attempt bonded the American people to Pres. Reagan, which is likely one reason why Reagan had no problem getting a second term, but more importantly, escaped impeachment hearings over Iran-Contra, a convoluted scheme which would have revealed real crimes and misdemeanors.

This post has been expanded and edited.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

If You Like Muddy, ‘Indeterminate’ War, Libya’s For You

“… In the meantime, the United States will participate in an open-ended, international intervention to stop Gadhafi, but the goal of that mission day to day and the time line on which it will be carried out are, frankly, unknown. For all the clamoring here at home for presidential communication to the nation on this, well, you got it, America. You got the clearest possible presidential statement about the muddiest possible ongoing, indeterminate international situation, otherwise known as a war. …” – Rachel Maddow (3.28.11)

It’s exactly what Hillary Rodham Clinton would have done, which is why she’s been out front on it. So I really don’t know how Obama’s fan club and die hard supporters are dealing with reality right now.

Via the UK Guardian: AC-130 gunships and A10 tankbusters, of the kind used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been deployed by the US.

Pres. Obama’s talk about “Gadhafi must go,” while rationalizing a manufactured distance from George W. Bush based on ground troops, might make some progressives backing the President’s move feel good, but it still amounts to the same outcome while the U.S. leads the effort: regime change or bust.

Obama’s chosen another leader to topple, because he’s become an inconvenient dictator, though the methods will be different than Bush.

From the New York Times:

[...] Air commanders provided an example of the role of American intelligence-gathering. Air Force eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan troops and relay that information to a Global Hawk drone flying high overhead. The Global Hawk zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. In some cases, the drones are the first to detect moving targets. The Global Hawk sends the coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the data on to the command center for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs command-and-control plane, which in turn directs F-16 and Harrier jets and other warplanes to their targets. “Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting, stop killing your own people, stop obeying the orders of Colonel Qaddafi,” Admiral Gortney said last week. “To the degree that you defy these demands, we will continue to hit you and make it more difficult for you to keep going.”

Regime change by other means is still regime change, with the U.S. military the only thing allowing the “rebels” to advance.

Anyone believing the U.S. has stepped back from involvement is missing our role in NATO, which is exactly what Pres. Obama and his surrogates are counting on.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.Associated Press

Hey, but if you like an open-ended, international intervention without a day to day mission or goal, but which is all about regime change ala Bush, then Obama’s muddy, ongoing Libyan war that has no end game is for you.

But if Gadhafi is ousted just who do you think will be the ones building, paying for and creating those “institutions” Pres. Obama says Libya will need post-Gadhafi?

And if someone can tell me who comes after Gadhafi, I’m all ears.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Sarah Palin’s Factoids

PALIN: Yes, that’s — that’s a good question. And that’s the $600 million dollar-a-day question that is being asked now because that’s the cost incurred by Americans as we support the no-fly zone, which, of course, the no-fly zone, the intervention or enactment is turning into more than that.

On the Democratic side you’ve got Sec. Clinton who helped make the case for Libya, along with Susan Rice and Samantha Power, among others.

On the Republican side you’ve got Sarah Palin offering up a fact free analysis.

At present, women in politics aren’t any more inspiring than the men on war and peace, which isn’t exactly a recommendation for why we should vote for them over a man.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Walker Ignores Law Because He Wants To

The Wisconsin fight goes on:

Gov. Scott Walker’s administration no longer is collecting dues on behalf of state unions and, as of Sunday, is charging employees more for their pensions and health care, even though nonpartisan legislative attorneys say the changes are not yet law. Backing up the administration, the state Department of Justice argued that the new law – which eliminates most collective bargaining for public workers – is in effect and asked a judge to vacate a restraining order against the law. Meanwhile, a Dane County prosecutor asked a judge to declare that the law is not now in place. – State stops collecting union dues, starts charging more for health care – Dispute still swirls around whether law is in force

Ignoring a state judge that found the anti-union bill violated the Wisconsin open-meetings law, Gov. Walker is playing the little dictator.

So, regardless of a court, Walker decides what goes. Not very democratic, but this is what Republicans do when they don’t like court decisions.

Walker and his ilk support the constitution as courts and judges adhere to their ideology. They don’t see the law as an arbitrator for political wills in battle.

That’s why whenever Republicans talk about “judicial activism” what they’re really talking about is a court that won’t find in their favor.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Suffering in Congo Reveals Obama’s Weak Case for Libya

“Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”Candidated Obama, “Audacity of Hope”



Pres. Obama got one thing correct last night in his speech. Just because we can’t help all countries doesn’t mean we can’t intervene where it’s really needed. Unfortunately, his judgment for what this means in American foreign policy sucks.

You want humanitarian crises as a rationalization for choosing to wage war one place and not another? Hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in the Congo.

Pres. Obama still hasn’t responded to the outcries to appoint a special envoy there. I guess Ben Affleck doesn’t have the juice of George Clooney.

There is no law in the Republic of Congo, beyond forcing young girls to marry her rapist.

We are now responsible for the Libyan rebels’ forward progress, which would stop the second the West would end the bombing, arms embargo and all other tools we’re using.

Whatever progressive leftists once were to the Democratic Party, those supporting Pres. Obama’s flawed rationale for choosing war in Libya has reduced them to drooling incoherence on Libya.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Obama Applauded Because He Channeled George W. Bush

Mark Halperin, the political weathervane of Washington, judged Obama’s speech last night a success for a reason no Democrat should trumpet: George W. Bush could have delivered every sentence.

Halperin went on to say Obama “boxed in Republican detractors.” Foreign policy on Democratic terms is now null and void.

Since when did a Democrat sounding like George W. Bush signify success?

That’s where Democrats find themselves as Barack Obama heads into reelection. So I guess the reviews of the speech will please many on the Democratic side of the spectrum, because the Right is applauding. But with Miranda also now going the way of Bush and Gitmo still in business, it’s a long way from “change we can believe in.”

Ed Schultz parroted Halperin. “If those words were coming from George W. Bush…” trumpeted Ed Schultz. “This is responsible foreign policy…” he continued.

Bill Kristol agreed: I knew pretty early on during tonight’s speech that President Obama had rejoined—or joined—the historical American foreign policy mainstream.

God help us.

Joe Scarborough delivers the hypocrisy charge directed at the “American Left,” which is apt.

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

In Yemen, the situation is no better. Government snipers shoot unarmed women and children from the rooftops of Sanaa. Should we follow Obama’s example in Libya and invade that country in the name of humanitarian relief? Or should we step into the breach in the Ivory Coast, where a terrifying civil war has led to a million refugees fleeing that country. And why do we not enter Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have been slaughtered over the past decade in a civil war of horrifying proportions?

Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.

In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.

Nothing Pres. Obama said last night convinced me Libya was in our vital interests or that the humanitarian crisis reached other events around the world, some unfolding right now. That we have no idea how this ends is another problem, as is the $600 million it’s cost so far.

But I was never a fan of George W. Bush, so Barack Obama’s foreign policy trajectory isn’t impressing me either.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Libya: 50% Say U.S. Has No Clear Goal

On balance, however, the public does not think that the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal in taking military action in Libya. Just 39% say the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal, while 50% say they do not.Modest Support for Libya Airstrikes, No Clear Goal Seen – Little Public Interest in Libyan Mission

If you want to know Pres. Obama’s job tonight, this is it. Make Americans understand the United States has a clear goal in Libya, which is also attainable. He’ll make the case by saying a humanitarian catastrophe has already been prevented, which isn’t a bad thing to bring to the table on his first speech on Libya to a national audience.

Also from Pew:

After several days of airstrikes on Libya by the United States and its allies, the public has mixed reactions to the military operation. Nearly half of Americans (47%) say the United States made the right decision in conducting air strikes in Libya while 36% say it was the wrong decision. Fully one-in-six (17%) express no opinion.

If Obama can move those 17% he’ll be in much better shape, regardless of the fact that his Libyan mission has been incoherent from the start.

I doubt, however, Pres. Obama will answer Justin Elliott’s question, which is a good one: Will Obama violate the arms embargo in Libya? The WSJ reported that Egypt is already arming the “rebels,” though it remains unconfirmed.

The video below of women in Libya is from “alivein” via Twitter.



It’s also good news that when Pres. Obama sits down tonight he can say NATO is in charge of a greater portion of what’s going on.

I can’t count how many articles I’ve read on Libya, from all sides of the political spectrum, mostly concentrating on foreign policy experts. Few can explain any backing of Obama’s war of choice in Libya with any clarity where American priorities are concerned. I don’t think anyone ever will.

One view from Canada is harsh, calling what’s been done in Libya as “humanitarian imperialism.”

This doctrine is known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P for short) and was endorsed by the United Nations in 2005. It mandates that the “international community” is morally obliged to defend people who are in danger of massive human-rights violations. It’s rooted in Western guilt over the failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda. R2P is the moral underpinning of the war in Libya…

[...] We have entered a new age – the age of humanitarian imperialism. Humanitarian imperialists are besotted with fantasies of the West’s inherent goodness. As American writer David Rieff puts it, they have promised that, from now on, all wars will “noble wars of altruism.” To them, the facts on the ground don’t matter much. What really matters is their good intentions.

There is no equivalent between Rwanda and Libya, but that’s the trouble with humanitarian missions that aren’t in a country’s vital interests. What’s the death toll or atrocity trigger that pushes countries to action?

Ms. Wente goes on to talk about Clinton, Rice and Power, as well as France’s Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Pres. Obama will make his case tonight, but will he address his “Gadhafi has to go” doctrine in terms of strategic interests, as well as how this all ends? He can’t, because it doesn’t fit that framing, and no one knows.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Jerome Corsi Birther Book Now Confirmed



The swiftboating of Pres. Barack Obama is about to begin in earnest.

I wrote about Donald Trump becoming the Republican front man on birtherism for 2012 on Friday.

Trump is out doubling down on it today, including releasing his own birth certificate.

He off-handedly questioned President Obama’s birthplace last week – a comment that drew strong rebukes from some quarters – but now business mogul Donald Trump says he’s more concerned than ever that the president was, in fact, not born in the United States.

Trump – who, however improbably, claims to be considering a presidential bid – said Monday that since his first public statement on the issue last week, “a lot of facts are emerging” that are making him question more seriously where Obama was born. “I am really concerned,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox News. “You have no doctors, you have no nurses … that remember.”

“I brought it up just routinely, and all of the sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I am starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country,” he exclaimed.

But on Friday I also reported Sean Hannity teased a book by Jerome Corsi, due out in May, which is all about questioning Obama’s legitimacy as president. Today it’s confirmed.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

A Place In Hell is Reserved

This is an adorable shot of “Patrick,” but there’s a reason he’s surrounded by cushy stuffed animals and his body covered. I simply didn’t have the stomach to post the shot of what shape he was in when he was discovered.

It’s at the link, but be prepared, because it will crack your heart wide open and release rage you might well rather leave untapped.

A New Jersey woman has been charged with four counts of animal cruelty after authorities accused of her dumping a starved 1-year-old pit bull down a trash chute. – New Jersey Woman Accused Of Dumping Dog Down Trash Chute

Kisha Curtis, the accused, should get a lot more than 6 months in jail. I have no idea whether she can afford the $1000 fine, but community service in an animal shelter should be added.

As a lifelong bird rescuer and animal lover, but also someone who sees a creature through to the end, I get a sense of overwhelm with stories like this. I won’t let my husband talk about the animal shelters he’s seen over his years as a tech, because I can’t bear them. One of the seminal moments of my life was seeing “Old Yeller.” It sent me to bed for a week. I’m just a wimp when it comes to creatures.

The picture here is of a fox that visits us regularly. I know the drill about not feeding wild creatures, which we refrain from doing for obvious reasons; seeing starving animals is simply beyond my ability to ignore. Yesterday he came up on our porch to grab a peanut laid out for birds. We put down some very pricey wet food from Blue Wilderness, the duck variety (grain free), which, incredibly, our cats will not touch (though since recently switching them to Blue Wilderson they seem to enjoy the dry variety). The fox wouldn’t touch it either, but loves the way I prepare chicken.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Flashback Fun for 2012: Newt Gingrich Spinning his Cheating During Clinton Impeachment

Republicans need to take this clown down. Mitt Romney should rhetorically nuke Newt.

But even as Chris Wallace zeroed in on Gingrich, watching Wallace squirm while doing it was telling. The Fox News anchor obviously conflicted about cornering a Republican.

Having gone through impeachment and written in Clinton’s defense at the time, the unwinding of Gingrich’s hypocrisy while he sweats like a stuck pig trying to get the Republican nomination isn’t in the least gratifying.

When you add chief impeachment honcho Rep. Henry Hyde’s own affair to Gingrich’s convenient moralism it’s a reminder of Republican chutzpah, but also that Democrats never hold their adversaries accountable.

Pres. Ronald Reagan was saved from Iran-Contra investigations and ultimate impeachment through the horrific assassination attempt that bound the country closer to their president. Richard Nixon was allowed to resign. Both Republicans revealing true “crimes and misdemeanors” needed for impeachment, which Pres. Bill Clinton’s stupid consensual sexual indiscretion never did.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Steve Clemons on Jon Huntsman Presidential Run

Ben Smith has a piece up on Steve Clemons.

I know Steve a bit, have been to his forums, parties and heard him speak innumerable times. He’s one of the few making sense on Libya.

What people do not realize about Clemons is that not only is he a tough foreign policy realist, which I share with him, though we split on Afghanistan until McChrystal’s implosion, he’s also a pragmatic thinker when it comes to political considerations. He proves it again in a quote he gave Ben on Obama’s departing ambassador to China:

“I think Jon Huntsman is terrific,” he said in a recent email. “I do and have talked with him on many occasions. Last met him at his office in Beijing but looking forward to seeing him soon at his new home in Kalorama. He reminds me of Chuck Hagel — and I might support him if he runs. I think he’d make a great president.”

Read the story on Steve, because of all the people buzzing around Washington, no one deserves the profile more.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Obama Speaks to Nation on Libya Tonight

**UPDATED**

Pres. Obama was forced political to speak tonight. It’s the last thing he wanted to do. His Saturday address gives you the foundation on where he’s likely to begin tonight. What he won’t say is that without sustained military efforts the Libyan “rebels,” the make up of which we haven’t a clue, won’t last.

The good news for Pres. Obama as he prepares to talk to we the people is that U.S. military actions have pushed the rebels to a better position, something they could not have come close to doing on their own. But the news that NATO has taken control of Obama’s war of choice in Libya quickly transitioning to them all aspects of the war is a huge help to Pres. Obama.

Unfortunately, because Obama entered into a misadventure not in U.S. vital interests he’s got some real challenges ahead, which he he won’t be able to answer tonight.

For instance, what’s next?

Pres. Obama stated “Gadhafi must go,” but in the same breath, as is seen in the video above, says he started a war with Libya on humanitarian reasons. You can’t reconcile these two objectives, neither of which were in consultation of Congress, though that’s hardly anything new.

Congress has become a neutered, not equal branch of government, so it’s never any sweat for a president to ignore them.

The other real problem is that it’s clear Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, Dr. Rice and Samantha Power, the pro-Libya war crowd, hasn’t thought through who would replace Gadhafi when he’s ousted.

That looming question has the potential of destabilizing a region, but also derailing Egypt’s progress, far more than what Gadhafi threatened to do to his own people.

Thousands of North Koreans starve, with girls in China being killed for years simply because they are not boys, so I find the Obama-Clinton pro-Libya axis unconvincing when it comes to the ultimate goals of what we’re doing in Libya, but also our overall foreign policy strategy that has now become incoherent.

Our military is also once again being stretched to breaking, with families expected to always give more for other nations, which when not in our strategic interests is an unconscionable thing to ask and beyond what they signed up to do.

I don’t think Pres. Obama will come close tonight to explaining what comes after the humanitarian crisis he went in on ends, because he didn’t map it out before he ordered the U.S. military into action.

Vision isn’t his thing.

UPDATE: From the New Yorker: “they have perhaps only a thousand trained fighters.”

Read full story · Comments { 6 }