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

How Does Sec. Clinton’s Latest Statement Help?

I have absolutely no idea the purpose of these remarks on ABC from Sec. Clinton, beyond covering for a commander in chief making his way home as a crisis escalates, this time politically. They make absolutely no sense to me at all at this point, but nothing the Obama administration is doing or saying on Libya makes sense, which now includes Sec. Clinton.

Not only does she admit she’s not aware “personally” of what she went on to tell Diane Sawyer, but she goes on to say some of what she’s imparting is “theater,” while throwing out the possibility that one of Col. Gadhafi’s sons was killed as she simultaneously admits the “evidence is not sufficient” for her to confirm the information she just imparted.

It’s like the world edition of As Libya Turns, with Clinton offering up sound bites that sound like a foreign policy soap opera, as she in the next breath proclaimed to be “very relaxed about it” all in an effort to obviously shore up Pres. Obama, as criticism at home escalated exponentially.

From ABC News:

“We’ve heard about other people close to him reaching out to people that they know around the world — Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America, beyond — saying what do we do? How do we get out of this? What happens next?” Clinton said in an exclusive interview. “I’m not aware that he personally has reached out, but I do know that people allegedly on his behalf have been reaching out.”

“Some of it is theater. Some of it is, you know, kind of, shall we say game playing, to try to do one message to one group, another message to somebody else,” she added. “A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It’s somewhat unpredictable. But some of it, we think, is exploring. You know, what are my options, where could I go, what could I do. And we would encourage that.”

Clinton said she’s also heard reports that one of Gadhafi’s sons may have been killed in the air strikes. But she added that the “evidence is not sufficient” to confirm.

Fox reports Obama has canceled public events for Wednesday, with the White House press corp coming home before the President, his own plans reportedly to include cutting his trip short by “hours.” However, no other outlet has offered a similar report, though this is not all that surprising to hear at this point.

Then there is Pres. Obama finally coming to grips that Gadhafi is very likely to stay in power, something that was clear from the top for anyone whose studied foreign policy.

“As long as Qadhafi remains in power — unless he changes his approach provides the Libyan people the opportunity to express themselves freely and there are significant reforms by the Libyan government, and he steps down — there’s still going to be a potential threat to the Libyan people,” Obama told reporters at a news conference here, his final stop on a five-day tour of Latin America. “We will continue to support the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be in the lead.” – Barack Obama: Libyan air campaign could last

It must be very ugly in our President’s brain right now as he tries to reconcile what he wants to happen with the realities of war and the U.S.’s role in it, which cannot be changed simply because Obama has deemed it must.

Pres. Obama is operating his Libya policy, such as there is one, under the assumption that because his plan is to remove the United States from the narrative of the no-fly action by handing over duties to the coalition or NATO immediately, that this is as easy as it sounds and can be done on his word. What this ignores is U.S. history, our role as leader of the free world and in taking the helm on every military intervention in modern times, not to mention what is expected of the American President at home.

The good news so far is that the American public haven’t caught up with the reality the Obama administration is facing and all the President and his team can hope is that they’ll get lucky or something will break, it may take both, before the public gets wind of the facts, which are ugly all around.

Obama’s policy also ignores what happened under Bush, as well as what Obama’s done in the region since becoming president. Pres. Obama believes his Cairo speech wiped out what has happened in Pakistan, but especially in Afghanistan, including the multitude of drone attacks, civilian deaths, and troops deployed, while his Administration has failed utterly on any coherent (there’s that word again) Middle East policy that deals effectively with the Palestinian and Israeli challenge.

Rachel Maddow once again tried to make the argument for Obama on her show last night, pressing her narrative of the President’s reluctance and also his willingness to change the U.S. interventionist narrative, this time emphasizing Obama’s Cairo speech, and once again, as with last night, her guests, Al Jazeera English’s Ayman Mohyeldin and Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs, quickly blew her theory out of the water. Obama wanting to turn the page from what came before is simply not enough given the history of the U.S. in the region, which now includes Pres. Obama’s own presidential footprint.

No matter what his intentions, humanitarian and that “Gadhafi must go,” the fact remains Pres. Obama has started a war in Libya and nothing he can say can change this reality or his role in initiating Operation Odyssey Dawn. The fact that Obama did this “on the fly,” to quote Sec. Gates, without thinking through the consequences of military action and the ramification of war becomes more apparent by the day.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Tuesday that plan to transfer command of the mission in Libya to coalition forces is “complicated.” “We haven’t done something like this on the fly before,” Gates, who is currently overseas on a diplomatic trip to Russia, said. Added Gates, “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.” – Talk Radio News

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Rachel Maddow Did Her Best But

Sarkozy’s stamp on the conflict has been unmistakable. Cable news in the U.S. on Monday featured the celebrity philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, an unexpected Sarkozy ally, barking praise for the French president at a CNN anchor and elated Libyan opposition fighters shouting, “Merci, Sarkozy.” And Sarkozy was indeed a central force in goading the world to act. “Sarkozy has a huge investment in seeing Qadhafi go,” said Justin Vaisse, the director of research for the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings in Washington. “He’s going to be a constant force in favor of hardening the stance and the action.” – Nicolas Sarkozy’s war, by Ben Smith

Intelligence from people on the ground reveals there really isn’t a good reason for Pres. Obama to have engaged in the Libya no-fly zone. While Ms. Maddow was correctly slamming the Right’s Sen. Lindsay Graham and others, as well as the notion of impeachment that was always a non-starter, her purpose of pushing the marketing aspect of Obama’s reluctance, as well as his smaller U.S. foot print, didn’t hold up for very long. It hardly matters what’s being said as the U.S. pounds Libya with $1 billion worth of armament not surprising in the end, while also stating we’re getting ready to go and that Gadhafi has to, too.

The Democratic support for Obama on Libya is well-meaning, of that I have no doubt. But it’s sorely out of step with reality, which John Judis proves accidentally, especially when you consider Obama’s inaction on Iran in ’09, Egypt, not to mention what’s happening in Bahrain, which forces the U.S. to be on the side against the people looking for freedom, because of national interests. When you look at Syria exploding and Yemen as well, if this is our policy, our no-fly efforts look like the beginnings of interminable interventionism. That’s not going to happen, so Pres. Obama’s reasoning quickly starts to collapse.

Richard Engel provided the proof that U.S. intelligence on Libya was not only scant but non-existent, which could prove dangerously embarrassing for the American President if Obama doesn’t extricate our military quickly and even then questions will ultimately linger. When Maddow asked Engel what kind of impact the strikes were having on Gadhafi’s forces, saying the “declared strategy” was to “make things safe enough for the rebels that they can win on their own,” Engel revealed the intelligence chasm the U.S. is operating under.

“Ooh, that’s going to be a tough one. These rebels are, they’re divided into two groups. They’re the volunteers and these rebels have really no military experience, very little sophistication, very little education. A lot of bravado, but when the actual fighting happens most of them run away. We were with rebels today who didn’t know how to load their weapons. They were dropping rounds of ammunition on the ground. A lot of them are fighting for weird conspiracy theories. I would say 1 in 5 of the rebels told me today that they’re fighting because they think Gadhafi is Jewish. …The other of the rebels is people, units that have defected from Gadhafi’s army and if we’re waiting for these defected units to go and suddenly storm the front lines I think we’re going to be waiting a little bit longer. I went looking for one of the top commanders here in Tobruk, actually the top commander in Tobruk and we went to the military base and we knocked on the door. He’s decided to take the day off. And I was shocked at that. You would think if the U.S. military had just joined your revolution after two plus days that this wouldn’t be the time to go home and spend some time with the family.

“Unbelievable,” Ms. Maddow responded. Indeed.

Unlike Egypt or even Iran’s Green uprising in ’09, both of which Pres. Obama and his administration sat back and watched unfold, at first even backing Mubarak, after initial deliberative reticence Pres. Obama jumped in to have the U.S. military lead the way on the no-fly zone on Libya, obviously unaware the composition of the rebels U.S. firepower was protecting. Huffington Post’s David Wood revealed this early on, with some of them “anti-American extremists.”

The reasoning Obama intervened was on humanitarian grounds, with U.S. foreign policy rarely if ever having a consistent strategy on what constitutes this reality. Pres. Obama answered questions on Libya, but even he went ’round in circles, talking about limited military actions, along with “Gadhafi’s got to go” as policy, which isn’t regime change. It was… um… nuts.

And as hard as the White House is pushing back on the women inside the Obama administration having a leading role on Libya, which quite a few males in the media have channeled, there is absolutely nothing that convinces me that the strong diplomatic work of Sec. Clinton, with Dr. Rice’s lead at the U.N. to muscle abstentions instead of objections, aided significantly by Samantha Power and her history of influence on Barack Obama, didn’t play a lead role in guiding the Administration to where Obama landed. The notion that these women have to be in the room when the decision is actually made to have led the argument to strike in Libya is preposterous. But the White House doesn’t like the meme, so tapping political writers to push back by giving them access isn’t surprising as a counter narrative.

Neera Tanden, former policy director for Senator Clinton and now COO of Center for American Progress, tried again today on MSNBC to make the Democratic argument for humanitarian intervention. Keep in mind that the threats to civilians in Benghazi have been mitigated already, which Tanden admitted, so she was forced to dance on the head of Obama’s diplomatic pin to keep from talking about “regime change,” something from which Arab allies would recoil. There is no tape, but this is a good transcript I did myself:

“Look, we have a humanitarian crisis and that is what has sponsored this incredible outgrowth of international support to our Arab allies. And so I think what’s holding this coalition together is really strong support for stopping a madman from literally killing and slaughtering his own people. And that objective is actually being achieved as we speak. Benghazi was on the throes of being overrun and that was stopped in its tracks. I think we can debate ultimate goals… ..” – Neera Tanden, COO Center for American Progress

The “ultimate goals” of Pres. Obama lie somewhere between “Gadhafi’s got to go” and humanitarianism, the latter having already been achieved.

This is where France’s Pres. Sarkozy comes in, because going back years his “brain child,” if you will, has been the creation of an economic and political Mediterranean Union comprised of Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Palestine, Portugal, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey, which is supposed to “bridge Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.” (Bernard-Henri Levy mentioned this last night on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show.) Sarkozy has a reason for leading the no-fly zone mission, even if he doesn’t have the military to begin it, so the importance of Pres. Obama handing off to him is critical.

The problem then becomes political for Obama, because the humanitarian aspect of the Libyan question was far away from any genocide standard, with “Gadhafi must go” a preference but simply not in America’s vital interests, because no one has a fricking clue what would replace him. The confusion of the mission coupled with the real leader being France, because of Sarkozy’s goal, is something that’s very hard to explain to a United States audience that expects America to be out front on every mission even if it’s not in our interest to do so.

Sen. Lindsay Graham helps this storyline by expecting Pres. Obama to make this no-fly effort a mission it simply is not, with the U.S. having absolutely no business attempting regime change. The Arab League backing the initial no-fly effort would freak if that’s what this morphed into, but Obama’s been his own worst enemy on this aspect.

Somewhere between Richard Engel’s reporting, which shows absolutely no fervor, let alone organization, from Libyan rebels close to Iran in ’09 and certainly not Egypt’s organized uprising, and our military interventionism, which is in Sarkozy’s personal interest, Obama’s foreign doctrine is being revealed as haphazardly incoherent.

It’s positively depressing to be a liberal and watch this national security insanity unfold.

That’s why you have experts like Steve Clemons going on Rachel Maddow and other shows carefully tiptoeing around what’s unfolding and trying mightily not to be critical of Pres. Obama, while simultaneously saying the whole effort is worrisome.

So, in the first two segments of her show as Ms. Maddow tried to separate Pres. Obama from his presidential predecessors, while also attempting to show him as a reluctant warrior, even as he ordered the U.S. military-led bombings to continue, everything fell apart. Because her guests provided evidence that regardless of Obama trying to go about his day job in a business as usual manner, keeping his South American job outreach on schedule, the rationale for authorizing military strikes unraveled before Maddow’s audiences’ eyes, with neither Richard Engel or Steve Clemons helping her case at all. Engel even suggestrf he might should be somewhere else since things in Yemen and surrounding areas were really catching fire.

Rachel Maddow is as good as they get on issues, but she and other Obama allies are really being put to the test on Libya. It’s not turning out very well so far.

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

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama’s Inconvenient Congress

In a harshly worded statement Monday evening, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) declared, “The United States does not have a King’s army.” “President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution,” said Bartlett, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee. [...] Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC Monday “this isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.” “We have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way,” said Webb. “The president is in Rio, the Congress is out of session.” – The Hill

Is this a joke? Unfortunately not, it’s just another sign of congressional impotence and Executive Branch hubris.

From Jake Tapper:

Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note.

By the time Pres. Obama got around to sending this letter the alleged objectives of “Operation Odyssey Dawn” had already been accomplished. That is, the anticipated bloodletting in Benghazi had been avoided.

Retroactive “official notification” of beginning a war that is not in U.S. interests and which makes a mockery of American priorities is an embarrassment to the American President.

But the bigger insult is to Congress itself, however, as David Weigel explains easily, that’s on them because they don’t seem to want to do their job.

The whole exercise so far is fitting of Jon Stewart’s “don’t we already have two wars,” Yes album, we’re broke, “We can’t simultaneously fire teachers and tomahawk missiles” derision.

On a serious note, a U.S. Air Fore F-15E fighter jet crashed after reported mechanical failure, according to a report from Mike Allen that stated the U.S. military Africa Command said rebels rescued him after he ejected. It was not shot down.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Newsweek Asks ‘How Dumb Are We?’ Ask Oprah.

[National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon speaking] [...] Fourth, the circumstances arose with the passage of the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, the night before a congressional recess. So he did, even with that, call Congress, those who remained in town on Friday and those who are out of town, on the phone to consult with them.David Dayen

If the President of the United States thinks he can launch military actions in Libya without officially notifying Congress on the fig leaf that it was a Friday night and nobody was around, Obama obviously believes we’re really dumb. Tina Brown’s Newsweek point out he may have a point.

Newsweek recently queried people to take their “citizenship test.” It’s not shocking that 38% failed. You can take the poll here. A couple of weeks ago Tina Brown’s newsweekly asked who was the most admired woman? The answer was Oprah Winfrey.

The most admired woman in the United States is Oprah Winfrey. One-quarter say Oprah Winfrey is the most admired woman, 17 percent say Hillary Clinton, 12 percent say Michelle Obama and 10 percent say Condoleezza Rice. Nine percent say Laura Bush, 7 percent say Diane Sawyer and 6 percent say Sarah Palin. Republican women say Oprah Winfrey is the most admired woman (33 percent), followed by Sarah Palin (18 percent). Democratic women say Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman (31 percent), followed by Oprah Winfrey (21 percent). Independent women say Oprah Winfrey as well (23 percent), followed by Diane Sawyer (19 percent). – Newsweek Survey: Oprah, Clinton Most Admired Women in America

Did you know Oprah Winfrey helped George W. Bush sell preemptive war in Iraq? Considered the “national anchor” by some, it mattered. This was an exchange that was featured on Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War,” which can be seen in the snippet below (h/t corrente).

Audience member: “I hope it doesn’t offend you… I just don’t know what to believe with the media.”

Oprah: “We’re not trying to propagandize, show you propaganda. We’re just showing you what is.”

Audience member: “I understand that, I’m saying —”

Oprah cuts her off.

Oprah: “OK, but, OK, you have a right to your opinion.”


from Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War”

Obviously, Ms. Winfrey wasn’t the only one on the Iraq war bandwagon, but her impact has also never been discussed. Though when the war went south and she flipped to be against it, she was lauded, while no one logged she was late and had been wrong.

For whatever reason Oprah always gets a pass.

Who can forget the huge moment in the ’08 primaries when Oprah said Barack Obama is “the one”? From CNN:

“I’ve never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn’t anyone to to stand up and speak up for,” Winfrey told thousands of people in Cedar Rapids Saturday evening.

“We need a president who can bring us all together,” she said. “I know [Barack Obama] is the one.”

Earlier in Des Moines, she focused on world affairs. “These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace,” Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd.

“I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House,” she said. “He’s a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be.”

Ms. Winfrey’s euphoria is the same type that followed Barack Obama throughout his campaign, which also landed him the Nobel Peace prize.

If anyone knows how dumb we are it’s Oprah Winfrey. She’s been cashing in on it for 25 years.

Though she’s done important shows, including on females in the military, and many others, that’s not what the overwhelming bulk of her shows covered or how she stayed on top. She never intended to follow in Phil Donahue’s shoes, instead going tabloid to beat him in the ratings and never turning away from one trash show after another. Her specialty was always her victim-apalooza shows. Oprah spawned Sally and every other trash TV show after her.

Over her astounding 25-year television career, Ms. Winfrey has also accomplished what no other woman has done before. Not only is she staggeringly wealthy, but someone who got that way through breaking the television trash TV barrier onto daytime long before Jerry Springer’s wild escapades hit. It’s an amazing accomplishment for any entertainment business person, but especially an African American woman raised in the segregated south and she deserves all the credit due for her achievements, including her incredible charitable giving. Her “O” network is a venture I hope will succeed where men have before, but where women have never before ventured.

Oprah has done for women what sports does for men. Make people believe in the financial mountaintop, sometimes through hocus pocus like “The Secret,” but she inspires the sight of dancing dollar bills in her fans’ dreams.

Of course, it’s one of the core problems of this country. Wealth over working to earn it, which Oprah Winfrey would be the first to tell you she worked hard for what she achieved.

So, with women admiring Oprah more than any other woman in America, as our culture also obsesses over Charlie Sheen, and as we blunder yet again into another undeclared military excursion, how can we be surprised that 38% of Americans can’t pass a citizenship test?

But how dumb are we?

Money and fame are our guide.

We don’t gravitate to information or education, though we talk a lot about it. Just look at who represents us and how they do their jobs.

We are suckered by celebrities telling us things made out of cotton candy rhetoric often with no foundational facts available at all.

Oprah’s a blockbuster shopper, hailing “my favorite things,” which makes companies and thrills the women in her audience. Her historic TV show’s tabloid tales reach across the globe. Her spirituality shows have helped rehabilitate her smarmy programming, which cashed in on victimhood as if it were the holy grail of goodness.

I find her historic success on television laudable for the sheer financial power she’s accumulated, but her television show is virtually unwatchable for the most part. I taped her last season for a while, but haven’t been able to watch most episodes. I do admit to enjoying Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford, as well as McGraw and O’Neil, but there’s only so much fluff I can take that doesn’t make me laugh.

Kitty Kelly’s biography, “Oprah,” was so feared by “O” that the media virtually banned her book due to Ms. Winfrey’s power to muzzle Kelly. “Oprah” is an eye-popping page turner of unending revelations compiled in one volume where Kelly constructs a picture of an insecure, binge-eating, control freak who obviously hasn’t taken her spirituality to heart. That Oprah’s fans didn’t read it isn’t surprising, but the complicit nature of the blackout on Kelly’s book is rather historic.

I can’t vouch for anything in the book except to say I’ve read it, but also that Kelly has never been successfully sued and “Oprah” is no exception. Mrs. Kelly is a methodically anal researcher with a gift for getting people on the record, while Oprah refused any contact at all, which is understandable. So there is quite a bit of the book that’s taken from other publications, long before Oprah earned her power. Kelly is an author who is compelled to strip the media story away from her subject then re-compile it slowly, episode by episode.

When Kelly’s book first came out Huffington Post gave her a full airing, as did USA Today and other papers, but television appearances were few and far between.

In America, we like our icons pristine. It’s more important than anything, including information about them that reveals them as imperfect humans. Americans abhor legend busting. On the whole we simply don’t want the facts. To paraphrase a legendary Jack Nicholson character, we simply can’t handle the truth.

Take the experience recounted by Kelly of prizewinning columnist for New Orleans’s Times-Picayune, Chris Rose, who wrote about the traumatic reaction he had after Hurricane Katrina. After 10-hours of “revisiting the emotional wreckage of the hurricane,” here’s a very brief synopsis of what happened when Rose refused to sign one of Oprah’s notorious nondisclosure/confidentiality agreements:

“‘If you don’t sign, we don’t run the segment,’” the producer said.

[...] “I had stuck my hand into a hornet’s next of anti-Oprah sentiment on the Internet that pushed my book from number eleven thousand on Amazon to number eighteen by the end of the day and then on to The New York Times bestseller list. … .. [...] I had no idea there were negative feelings about her and her confidentiality agreements out there, but I received calls and emails from writers all over the country saying they were going to buy my book that day to send her a message.”

Any society afraid of truth is in trouble. That’s us.

One year ago when Ms. Kelly’s book was released it caused a firestorm due to the personal revelations revealed by Oprah’s relatives, which is the stuff of stunning tabloid juiciness. It rivals anything in “Game Change,” which is going to be an HBO movie. Your heart breaks for Winfrey, as revelations of being a prostitute are discussed for her memoir that never was done and all sorts of sordid contested details are unloaded. The saddest part of the saga is that for all Oprah’s public religiosity the picture portrayed by Kelly is one of paranoid megalomaniac. However, what wafts from the pages of Kelly’s book helps you understand why Oprah chose the path she did on daytime, churning the swamp of human indignities for ratings and financial reward’s sake.

It’s likely no one in this country could explain how dumb we are better than Winfrey.

The worship of Oprah seems even weirder when you juxtapose Oprah with what’s happening with women around the world, especially as the women of the Middle East rise up to change their countries that includes a place for them in their country’s future.

Perhaps it’s the privilege of women in America that makes Oprah’s fans worship her, without caring about the underlying reality that doesn’t match the legendary “O” marketing.

For whatever reason, Oprah has never gotten the national scrutiny for how she’s impacted our culture, but also the dumb factor in our country. Over 25 years of daytime programming on “Oprah” represents why we’re dumb.

Of course, Oprah’s not the only one to blame or maybe she’s not to blame at all. After all you can change the channel. However, when it’s seen as blasphemy to ask the same questions of Oprah that were asked of Geraldo Rivera there’s a willful ignorance being applied, especially where women are concerned.

So, if you want to know how dumb are we, ask Oprah. She’s become the richest woman in America, rivaling men around the world, by betting on American ignorance.

This column has been updated and cross-posted at TheModerateVoice.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Tim Pawlenty Follows Palin to Facebook

…and announces an exploratory committee for president via video, complete with soaring music, invocation of Reagan, as well as Lincoln.

“Restore America” seems to be his theme.

Now all he needs is a charisma transplant.

The reviews on Twitter are properly disrespectful…

David Weigel: I hope the next Pawlenty video includes one of those classic Michael Bay camera-rotating-around-two-people-kissing shots.

Jeff Zeleny: Pawlenty makes his 2012 exploratory official in promotional video, raising the question: Is this man from Minnesota always set to music?

HuffPostHill: According to Pawlenty’s fast-paced announcement video, he will run on a small government, anti-Steadicam platform

MKHammer: Beginning to wonder if TPaw sets up events during GIANT news stories just to challenge himself. Book tour=Tucson. Today=Libya. #heartsonfire

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Hinderaker on Sarah Palin as she Visits Israel

**UPDATED**

[...] Israeli military officials declined to comment on why Mrs Palin may have turned back, but the country’s defence ministry confirmed that she had made no formal request to visit the occupied West Bank – standard protocol for any foreign dignitary. The oversight could prove embarrassing for Mrs Palin’s advisers, who are unused to planning for foreign visits and have a reputation for being poorly organised. It is unclear whether Mrs Palin and her team failed to realise that Bethlehem lay on Palestinian territory rather than in Israel, a mistake often made by foreign tourists, though not so often by visiting politicians. …Sarah Palin aborts visit to Bethlehem

Palin visited Jerusalem, “wearing a Star of David necklace,” which got a lot of press, while dining privately with PM Netanyahu.

Over the weekend it got some attention from the Right. Being one liberal who doesn’t insult Palin’s intelligence, also being one of the only political analysts on the Left who gave her credit not only for driving Obama and the Dems off their health care message, such as it was, as well as the fact Sarah was most responsible for the Right’s win in the 2010 midterms, I find Hinderaker’s statement below a head scratcher.

Liberals love to insult Sarah Palin’s intelligence. It’s not a subject on which I have any particular opinion, except to note that, apparently by a remarkable coincidence, her judgment is correct on just about every subject. – John Hinderaker

Sarah was so incorrect in her response to the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy that she’s been on a downhill spiral ever since.

There is simply no way to give Mrs. Palin any deference whatsoever in her poorly timed, self-serving “blood-libel” video after the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy, which revealed the worst about her. Not only was she incorrect to make the video on the day Pres. Obama was to speak at the memorial, but she made the entire episode about her. As Roger Ailes reportedly advised, the better part of humility would have been to not interject herself, though an even better move would have been to say she’d be part of the solution and watch her own rhetoric in the future.

It really was the turning point for Sarah Palin, a moment when she lost a lot of credibility in her ability to put the people of the United States above her own self-serving defensiveness. As my own writings have illustrated, after Sarah’s post-Tucson video she lost a lot of credibility with me.

As for Palin in Israel, let’s just call it the traditional pilgrimage all wannabe presidential hopefuls make to show they are significantly attuned to Israel’s needs. It’s the first test Democrats and Republicans have to pass.

It follows a trip Palin made to India where she thought it wise to criticize the sitting commander in chief at a time he was pondering launching air strikes at Libya. This proves that Sarah Palin not only doesn’t respect the seriousness of what Pres. Obama was about to do, but she thought playing politics at such a moment was more important than acting like an American who supports her president at a time of potential war.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Obama is No Patsy

[...] The same kind of difficulties are already bedeviling our Libyan war. Our coalition’s aims are uncertain: President Obama is rhetorically committed to the idea that Qaddafi needs to go, but Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, allowed on Sunday that the dictator might ultimately remain in power. Our means are constrained: the U.N. resolution we’re enforcing explicitly rules out ground forces, and President Obama has repeatedly done so as well. And some of our supposed partners don’t seem to have the stomach for a fight: It took about 24 hours for Amr Moussa, recent leader of the Arab League, to suggest that the organization’s endorsement of a no-flight zone didn’t cover bombing missions. [...] – A Very Liberal Intervention, by Russ Douthat

It’s the fantastic fantasy meets the unmitigated stupidity of missing reason. But it certainly tears the bark off the Obama fan boy foundational tenet, which is that Pres. Obama is being forced by those around him, never having to take responsibility for his own decisions, because his blunders are never his own. Could it be any more insulting to Pres. Obama? I’m no booster for Obama, but I’ve always given the man a lot more credit and respect him more than this. Why would anyone vote for someone, primaries or general election, who is actually believed to be such a patsy?

This thinking unmasks what type of individual is respected in the traditional and new media world.

Newsbusters has the transcript of “The Chris Matthews” show where tingling legs rule:

ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I don’t think it’s wrong for a President of the United States to issue an opinion about some madman like Gaddafi. I do think that the American public might have been consulted before the United States goes to war. I mean, we now got, you know, the President tells people after the fact? I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don’t know the consequences, it’s been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong?

[Laughter]

SULLIVAN: I mean, when you think about it. And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept.

A few minutes later, when the discussion changed to whether or not Obama will push for Social Security reform, Sullivan said he didn’t think so, and continued with this same theme:

SULLIVAN: Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go.

MATTHEWS: Transformational president.

SULLIVAN: Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess.

Nice try, but what we now have is an Obama war that was begun on the wings of Executive Branch hubris and ego. As if Barack Obama didn’t have the facility to engage us in a “politicized mess.” Perhaps Mr. Sullivan slept through health care, but also the deficit commission, not to mention the Bush tax cut extension debacle, all of which were organized through a politicized Obama-directed mess.

It’s also laughable that Pres. Obama is listening to John McCain. The only people who hang on his every word reside at NBC news and “Meet the Press.”

There is also a lot of difference between being guided by Sec. Clinton and having the most powerful women inside the Obama administration being responsible for going from deliberative to first-strike, no-fly war shots and Pres. Obama deciding to let his own commander in chief hubris be his guide.

For Obama fans and delusional war hawks, Barack Obama is never responsible, even while being influenced. There is always an out for him. That’s a partisan mess peculiar only to Barack Obama, which has nothing to do with bogeyman Clintonianism, which Mr. Sullivan is always ready to reach for when his political analysis hits the rocks, which is often. Luckily for Sullivan it won’t impede his failing upwards.

Sullivan does raise a good point that is likely sticking in a lot of throats right now, but it’s not a new question, though the emotion behind his sputtering is priceless: And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national security foundation was always going to be on the leading edge of aggressive, which is something I always knew.

As for Barack Obama, even with his anti-Iraq war stance and speech delivered in a safe district to virtual silence, there was no evidence of bravery anywhere in his career.

John McCain was the worst of all choices given he shoots first, thinks later, with Sarah Palin waiting in the wings an even larger unknown than Obama, but with neoconservative ideology in place of foreign policy knowledge, which today remains the case, Palin was always a troublesome waiting in command.

Pres. Obama may be a lot of things, but he’s not a patsy, which Sullivan implies, nor is he blameless or some stooge being led around by McCain or Sec. Clinton.

Barack Obama was simply never the man so many who voted for him thought he was, but primary voters were too busy adoring candidate Obama’s face, in Sullivan’s logic, or his persona, while sucking Plouffe-Axelrod marketing through a straw, to stop and realize that when he ducked the vote on Iran he was sending a message.

Are you hearing him now?

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

AmericaBlog Gay: Joyce Arnold ‘Becoming Must Read’



Nothing thrilled me more today than getting an email from Joe Subday telling me he gave a huge hat tip to Joyce in the title of his latest post, because people need to know she’s important reading. He cites the post Joyce did this past Saturday.

Joe then goes on to drill home what Joyce wrote, quoting the “real up-and-coming homophobes, Dan Ramos.”

When Joyce accepted my invitation to write on the site, her posts appear every Saturday, I can’t tell you how thrilled I was at what she might offer. As one of the more active voices on TM.com, Joyce always cuts to the bone, giving no quarter to Democrats or Republicans. I remember when we talked about titling her regular column as “Queer Talk,” not knowing what the response would be. Now she knows.

All I can say is that having Joe from AmericaBlog Gay cite Joyce and give her such a strong endorsement on their site makes me very happy for what she’s accomplished in such a short time.

There’s no reason Joyce Arnold can’t become one of her community’s leading voices. She’s well on her way already.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Suckas

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that Washington did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power. Opening up the possibility of a rift between the US and Britain and France if the Gaddafi regime does not crumble quickly, he said: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go. It’s about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people.” Adm Mullen said it was “certainly potentially one outcome” that the mission could succeed while leaving Col Gaddafi in power.Libya: Mike Mullen admits stalemate could leave Gaddafi in charge

That’s the headline at Huffington Post. We’re trying

Ah, winning. It’s the Charlie Sheen theory of modern warfare.

We’re going to “succeed” by leaving Gadhafi in charge, because when Pres. Obama said he had to go he was just speaking euphemistically and that Gadhafi’s policies had to change towards his people. Got it?

A hand off of the mission to NATO or an Anglo-Franco lead is suggested to happen very soon, according to SecDef Gates. All we can do is hope, because Operation Odyssey Dawn is obviously a crap shoot.

Evidently people are also just waking up to the reality that when you let fly 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles and all sorts of other dogs of war fly civilians are going to die. What part of war don’t people understand?

The whole notion of Obama waiting to get the Arab League, but also the UNSC, to sign on to a no-fly zone was actually about having an international military coalition so Arabs would have real skin in the game. Instead we’ve got some mouth piece organization who nodded their approval without any military involvement, which has now led to a statement separating Arab nations from the U.S.-led mission in Libya, while blaming “international strikes” for hitting civilians. Amr Moussa also doesn’t want them to be part of a NATO umbrella, you know, because that’s sensitive. Gates saying there is “some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella.”

Who could have guessed this would happen?

Right on cue:

The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths. The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed. Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.” U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.

Pres. Obama managed to hide on every other issue, leaving others to take the fall, but not on Libya. He’s now got his Bush-esque war, with no end in sight. He’s a real war time president.

Marc Ambinder wrote a piece yesterday on the decision making. One section featured Clinton:

It was important to the U.S. that Libyans and the world understand that this coalition of the willing was more than a U.S. rhetorical construct. An hour before bombing began Saturday, Clinton spoke to the press in Paris. Asked why military action was in America’s interest, she gave three reasons and implied a fourth. A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.

A humanitarian disaster was imminent, Clinton stated on behalf of Obama. Interesting how humanitarian crises in places like Darfur never count. As for the mythical “line” other countries better not cross, we’re back the future and neck deep in Democratic Scoop Jackson hawkdom now, folks. Yee-haw!

And once again the United States is fighting inside a Muslim country in yet another undeclared war.

Can we just abolish Congress instead of pretending they do anything meaningful?

And while we’re at it just merge the big two political parties, because it’s not like Pres. Obama is actually going to pay any price from Democrats for getting suckered into a no-fly zone bombardment that’s got the U.S. once again out front footing the carnage and the bill, with the mission a mish-mash of muscle flexing.

Ralph Nader suggests Pres. Obama should be impeached for “war crimes.” The notion that Democrats would ever stand up to Barack Obama is such a hilarious suggestion I just about fell off my chair laughing. The media would never allow it. Progressives don’t care that he sold out Democratic Party principles so why would they care he’s now been revealed to be your garden variety conservative on matters of war and peace, too.

When I wrote back in 2007 that if Barack Obama would have voted for the IUMF on Iraq if he’d been in the Senate I was besieged by Obama boy blogger and fans bitching. That’s what happens when you get so close to a politician’s ass you can’t see him (or her) laughing at you out of both sides of his mouth. Poor Andrew Sullivan is positively apoplectic.

Nothing good is going to come of this, with Pres. Obama looking very foolish when we spend all this energy only to end up with the Libyan mad man still in power. I could be wrong, but this could end up being the mother of all turning points for his presidency.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Women War Hawks Win on Libya

The Pentagon says 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting more than 20 Libyan targets along the Mediterranean coastline. Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, told reporters the Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from one British submarine and a number of American destroyers and subs. He said the success of the mission was not immediately clear, adding that additional attacks would commence later. – Qaddafi’s Air Defenses ‘Severely Disabled’ Following Military Strikes


screen capture via Huffington Post

Never having fallen for what Ann Althouse writes about today, I don’t find it remotely surprising that it’s women who guided Pres. Obama to act in Libya. Some of you might remember this column. It’s not the first time women have channeled the masculine on foreign policy, because there has yet to be a convincing competing narrative created by any woman. Is it because on war and peace gender doesn’t apply? If anything, it’s Pres. Obama who has offered the feminine side of the equation so far.

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir showed how it was done, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as Sarah Palin, the latest to take up that charge, though Clinton actually has power, while Palin offers pontifications from abroad.

In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.

Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

[...] The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.

The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. [...]

This is the same type of action that helped kick Hillary Rodham Clinton off the presidential path, regardless of the reality that Sen. Barack Obama had virtually the same voting record on matters of war and peace as Sen. Clinton, minus his ducking out on a measure on Iran where he couldn’t get away with voting “present,” which has been his problem the past few weeks as well.

As much as I wanted and applaud Pres. Obama for waiting for word from the Arab League and the UNSC, both of which finally came, I am astounded at the lack of consideration on WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE MILITARY ACTION Clinton, Rice and Power wanted, and Obama now backs.

Let me also ask a question no one seems to be asking: Where the hell are the Saudis and the Egyptians? The Saudis have a fierce fighting force, with Obama having completed the largest sale in U.S. history to them last fall, $60 billion, and we give Egypt $1.3 billion a year. So why is the U.S. so willing to foot the bill for a military action that isn’t in America’s vital interests no matter how you look at it?

Trying to salve the wounds of past mistakes doesn’t make what’s happening in Libya “genocide.” It’s a civil war citizens of Libya are waging against their leader, which however excruciating to watch isn’t any of our business.

While we’re at it and talking about vital interests, why aren’t we getting involved in what’s happening in Bahrain where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is stationed? (Good post on why Saudi Arabia’s involved in Bahrain.) Sec. Clinton has issued a warning to Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Iran on Saturday to stop meddling in Bahrain and other Arab states in the Persian Gulf, but also called on the kingdom’s leaders not to use force against anti-government protesters.

Clinton said the United States “has an abiding commitment to Gulf security” and that “a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behavior in the region.”

“We share the view that Iran’s activities in the Gulf, including its efforts to advance its agenda in neighboring countries, undermines peace and stability,” she told reporters after an international conference on the crisis in Libya. At that meeting, she met with numerous Arab officials who complained that Iran was fomenting unrest Bahrain and elsewhere.

Bahrain’s Sunni minority monarchy is facing growing opposition from the Shiite-majority population and has called in security forces from neighboring Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to deal with escalating protests.

[...] The Gulf force underscores the deep worries about Bahrain’s stability among the region’s Sunni kings and sheiks. They fear any stumble by Bahrain’s leaders could embolden more challenges to their own regimes and possibly open room for Shiite heavyweight Iran to make political inroads.

The U.S., which counts Bahrain as a centerpiece of its Gulf military framework, has sent top envoys to meet with the embattled monarchy and has been criticized by Shiite opposition groups for not coming to their support.

And where the hell is Congress where Libya is concerned? Did we learn nothing from preemptive war in Iraq?

Once again, this time goaded by females, Pres. Obama is unleashing the winds of war without thinking through the exercise completely, even if cautious deliberation is where he began. It does, however, give more proof that if he was in the Senate at the same time as Clinton Obama would have very likely joined the other presidential hopefuls in wanting to oust Saddam Hussein.

Obama’s declaration was stunning:

“Left untouched,” Obama said, “we have every reason to believe Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people.” – USA Today

That’s our military foreign policy standard? Hardly, because it sure as hell didn’t apply in Darfur.

Pres. Obama, after being correct to wait, is now sounding astoundingly hypocritical.

American politicians have proven their bankruptcy once again through talking about military intervention as the U.S. economy sputters, austerity talks continue, entitlements suggested for targeting, with the U.S. military budget and our policies never being included in the reality scenarios.

You cannot talk about cutting entitlements while sanctioning military action in the Arab world and not also demand the Saudis and Egyptian government step in to use their massive military might, which we’ve made possible.

As for the women who continue to lead like men, I’ve written about it many times before, so none of this surprises me at all. Perhaps that’s why a woman has never been elected president, because no female has ever offered an alternative vision for the world and what it would mean for America in terms of war and peace.

That Pres. Obama has gone from deliberative and waiting for Arab nations and the world to join in, while not demanding more in the war of financial participation, as he also shrugs off Congress, reveals anything but “change we can believe in.”

Instead it’s here we go again.



This column has been updated, bumped.

UPDATE 3: Pres. Obama has announced no ground troops will be sent to Libya. So, time to revisit Gen. Wesley Clark’s warning this past week, “Libya isn’t worth the risk.” Clark remembers words that then Pres. Clinton said at the time, with there being a huge difference, part of which I mentioned today:

In 1999, when we launched the NATO air campaign against Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, President Bill Clinton had to state publicly that he didn’t intend to use ground troops. He did so in an effort to limit the costs of an initiative that the public and Congress did not consider to be in our nation’s vital interest. The administration and I, as the NATO commander in Europe, were in a difficult position, and Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic knew it. But what Milosevic didn’t understand was that once we began the strikes — with NATO troops deployed in neighboring countries and the Dayton Peace Agreement to enforce in Bosnia — NATO couldn’t afford to lose. And the United States had a vital interest in NATO’s success, even if we had a less-than-vital interest in Kosovo.

[...] It is hard to stand by as innocent people are caught up in violence, but that’s what we did when civil wars in Africa killed several million and when fighting in Darfur killed hundreds of thousands…

UPDATE 2: Wikileaks reveals Anti-American extremists likely among those we’re going to undeclared war to protect.

UPDATE: Michael Moore eviscerated Pres. Obama’s decision today on Twitter. Meanwhile, congressional progressives are livid.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Progressive Notes: Protestors Bring Cheer, Sanders and Weiner Push Bill to Kill S.S. Cuts

Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

I think it is good to every now and then look at what good progressives are doing for America. In such dark days progressives are finally in the streets fighting for labor rights, against the banks, Wall St. It is finally happening. In Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Indiana and Washington D.C. people march. They are organizing via MoveOn, Twitter, unions and Facebook: all without much help from O.F.A. Which to me is great. We need a independent movement out there to push this president and Democratic Party to the Left.

This week we saw people power in Missouri: the G.O.P. pressed a bill to kill union rights but it lost out on the state senate floor. Why? Thousands of protestors lobbied their representatives for weeks and made their voices heard. The right to strike lives in Truman’s home state.

In Texas Governor Perry and his monsters said in January up to 27 billion dollars form t he deficit would be made up in cuts. Public education funding would be destroyed, libraries, medical care and far to much more. 100,000 educators could lose their jobs. So folks got mad. Mostly Democrats. And now they are in the streets fighting Perry with some success. Last weekend the AFT protest in Austin drew 11,000 to the capitol. Then a few days later 5,000 drove in to lobby their representatives to rethink a cuts only approach.

So Perry backed down some, although not near enough. Suddenly he is favor of using part of the Rainy Day Fund, it’s 10 billion from taxes on Big Oil that is available for budget woes. In a few months with pressure building the hope is the whole fund will be used and new revenue as well. People power.

Progressive hounding on Democratic leaders in congress may for now have pushed Social Security off the table for getting screwed around. Senator Reid announced that he will consider S.S. changes, in 20 YEARS:

The Senate’s top Democrat said he’s open to changing Social Security — 20 years from now.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) emphatically rejected changes to Social Security that would improve the entitlement program’s solvency, jesting that he’d be willing to revisit the program’s structure in two decades, once it’s projected to become insolvent. …

“It is not in crisis at this stage. Leave Social Security alone. We have a lot of other places we can look that is in crisis. But Social Security is not.”

As Reid says no deals on S.S., Senator Sanders and Rep. Wiener lead the charge with legislation to protect S.S. from ever being cut. They want a supermajority to approve any change:

Sanders’ bill would require extraordinary majorities in Congress to approve any reduction in benefits. “Congress should not be able to cut the hard-earned Social Security benefits of current or future eligible recipients without a two-thirds vote by the Senate and the House,” Sanders said.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) introduced the same measure in the House. “Social Security is an intergenerational contract that has never been broken. The GOP has pledged to attack its very foundation. This bill would arm us for the coming battle,” Weiner said.

Sanders and Weiner were joined at the press conference today by Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Sanders and other working class champions unveil their proposal:

One last shout out to Lansing Mayor Bernero who is taking on the new G.O.P. Governor Snyder of Michigan who is seeking dictatorial powers to unseat mayors or anyone who gets in his way to break contracts, unions and much more. Mayor Bernero, who ran for governor back in November, was on the Ed Show March 16th and is great. See the vid here .

And for dessert today, in case you haven’t seen this YouTube video sensation (seen by 2 million so far) is of teacher Taylor Mali. He gives his response to the Right wing criticism of teachers “making too much money.” This is must see:

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Queer Talk: Homophobes Disrobe

Dan Ramos

Anyone aware of Romanovsky & Phillips’ classic, Homophobes in Robes, (1994) will recognize my take-off on that song with “Homophobes Disrobe.” In their song, the “homophobes in robes” are 1) the Pope; 2) the KKK; and 3) the U.S. Supreme Court.

More broadly, “homophobes” have a tendency to “disrobe” themselves in the sense of revealing the negativity which is hidden beneath their figurative robes of respectability.

Before proceeding to examples, three things. First, “homophobia” is defined ( Merriam-Webster ) as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” Second, with no attempt to provide cover for them, not everyone who thinks or believes homosexuality is “wrong” is homophobic.

And third: not everyone who condemns “homosexuality” is talking out of internalized homophobia. I concede that if we look to political and religious figures in the news, we could draw the conclusion that it might seem as if the politician or preacher who makes the most noise about the “bad” homosexuals turns out to be homosexual. But a bit of caution is appropriate here, too.

Homophobia is best understood within the context of systemic, prejudicial framing. Coretta Scott King, well-known for her strong statements in support of LGBT rights, makes this point. In 1998 she said (via AmericaBlog ):

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.

Literal or figurative robes of respectability are often removed, if unconsciously, by the words and actions of the people wearing them. A few recent examples follow.

Bexar County, Texas, Democratic Party Chair Dan Ramos does not employ subtlety. In an interview with the San Antonio Current, Ramos basically just ripped off the robe.

I liken [Stonewall Democrats] to the Tea Party — the Tea Party and the fucking Nazi Party — because they’re 90 percent white, blue-eyed, and Anglo, and I don’t give a shit who knows that. That’s the truth. Just like the blacks, they’re strong. And there’s nothing wrong — they’re Americans — but you can’t get your way just because you’re black.

The Current continues:

When asked if race or sexual orientation were more a cause of concern for him, Ramos responded: ‘I go back to an old very well-used slogan: blacks wanted to get their way because they were black. What it is, is we have a very, very sinister movement in which you don’t know, at the end of the day, you didn’t even know that your next door buddy, your bosom fishing buddy was gay. That, I guess, goes to my belief in the religious thing. Look: this is not natural. This is like a kid who was born with a polio leg, you can’t kill him and you can’t sweep him under the rug.’

At a press conference on Friday, March 17, a few days after the initial comments, Ramos seemed intent on removing another protective layer. Via Dallas Voice:

Sam Sanchez of QSanAntonio.com was at the press conference and reports that rather than resigning, Ramos said BOLD gays are like ‘white termites who have infiltrated the party much like termites infiltrate your house’.

You know, I don’t remember ever being called a “termite” before, so points for originality.

Meanwhile, in Kansas, a disrobing, revealing movement came when the state legislators recognized that their law “banning homosexual acts” (that’s a polite, robed sort of way to refer to “having sex,” which is how the “homosexuals” are defined) is a bit outdated, but couldn’t bring themselves to part with the protective covering. Tim Beauchamp writes:

The House Judiciary Committee was considering a bill to clean up Kansas’ criminal code when a pair of lawmakers, Jan Pauls from Hutchinson and Lance Kinzer from Olathe, removed an amendment from the bill that would have repealed the law banning homosexual acts.

Laws banning homosexual acts have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But Lanzer says it doesn’t need to be repealed because it isn’t being enforced, saying ‘It’s a tempest in a teapot. I don’t think it would make any difference. The statute is unenforceable.

Sometimes instead of removing their concealing robes, they tie them in knots.

From politics to religion, Focus on the Family labels anti-bullying programs and policies “pro-homosexual.” Right Wing Watch reports:

“Leaders and groups continue to describe anti-bullying policies as attempts to ‘homosexualize their children’ and ‘promote homosexuality in kids’ through ‘homosexual indoctrination.’” One big rainbow flag of warning about homophobe disrobing action is when they use the word “homosexual” as often as possible.

So is the use of a string of other scary words. Right Wing adds this, from The Protect Kids Foundation (by opposing anti-bullying programs): “ … gay-rights advocates are ‘obsessed with power’ and ‘are determined to transform schools, kids, and culture into their hedonistic vision of a new utopian America radically transforming society by using our children as pawns for social change.’” A hedonistic utopia, huh? PKF unabashedly rips off the concealing robes and lets homophobia shine forth.

Finally, at America Blog, Sudbay headlines a recent piece, “Meet the 97 biggest homophobes in the US House,” writing about “the haters” supporting a “resolution demanding that the President defend DOMA.” He provides the list of the 97, all Republican. In a related piece, “So much for fiscal issues, half of House Teabaggers are blatant homophobes,” he says that the 97 total includes 26 of the 52 House Tea Party Caucus.

This kind of derobing action is sort of a quick flash, accompanied by a knowing wink and smirk, though sometimes they do trip over their robes, distracted by the need to check out responses to their courageous votes, to be sure they got it Right.

Mostly homophobia reveals itself, even by bosom fishing buddies. And just so you know, homophobe robe removal is another Gay Agenda item for all us queer, hedonistic, sinister termites who use kids as pawns toward realization of our utopian dreams.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

My $0.02/Saturday Reads and a few words from Dr. Seuss

Morning, everyone. As I drafted this post on Friday, news broke that a Wisconsin county judge has blocked Walker’s collective-bargaining law.

Other than that, not much happy news to report, so I’ve included some uplifting words from Seuss at the end of my Saturday picks below. Also, see photo to the right for reason to keep hoping against hope.

Onto the rest of the headlines…

Japan and Nuclear Energy

The number of dead and missing from Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami has now topped 16,000. It is the deadliest natural disaster to hit Japan in nearly a century.

For example, here’s a little line-up of TEPCO lies:

  • In 2002, Michael Zilenzieger reported that top officals TEPCO were forced to resign “after admitting that the company had covered up safety violations and falsified records at three of its largest nuclear power plants”.
  • In 2006, the government demanded that TEPCO “check past data after it reported that it had found falsification of coolant water temperatures at its Fukushima Daiichi plant in 1985 and 1988, and that the tweaked data was used in mandatory inspections at the plant, which were completed in October 2005.”
  • And in 2007, TEPCO reported that it “had found more past data falsifications, though this time it did not have to close any of its plants.”

Then there were some minor matters of building on fault lines that they claim not to have known about and releasing radiation into the atmosphere. And so on.

Distrust of government has also helped nurture anti-nuclear sentiment. As Flynn’s study found, the yawning gap between expert and public views on nuclear risk owes largely to a lack of trust in government and industry officials to manage the hazards safely. In the United States, the old Atomic Energy Commission was widely viewed as secretive and deceptive before its dissolution in 1974. Perhaps this explains why the two industrialized countries that have had the most success in allaying nuclear fears are France and Japan, cultures that are largely comfortable with leaving the task of governing to technocrats. (Though, admittedly, in Japan, confidence in the government and nuclear utilities had come under strain even before Fukushima.)

Why are we playing Russian roulette with the American people for nuclear plants whose principal objective is simply to boil water and produce steam? This is technological insanity. It presents national security problems, for every nuclear plant is a prime target. It affects our civil liberties. It endangers our workers. It is an industry that cannot be financed by Wall Street because it’s too risky. Wall Street demands 100 percent taxpayer guarantees for any nuclear plant.

So I suggest that people listening and watching this program to pick up the phone and dial the White House comment number, which is (202) 456-1111, (202) 456-1111, and demand the following: that there be public hearings in every area where there’s a nuclear plant, so the people can see for themselves what the hazards are, what the risks are, how farcical the evacuation plans are, how costly nuclear power is, and how it can be replaced by energy efficiency, by solar energy, different kinds of solar energy, by cogeneration, as Amory Lovins and many others, Peter Bradford, have pointed out.

We must no longer license any new nuclear plants. We should shut down the ones like Indian Point. How many people know that Hillary Clinton, as senator, and Andrew Cuomo, as attorney general, demanded that Indian Point be shut down? That doesn’t matter to the monetized minds in Washington, D.C. We also should prepare a plan where, apart from the aging plants, which should be shut down, and apart from the earthquake-risk plants—should be shut down—for the phase-out of the entire industry. We’re going to be left with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, for which there is no permanent repository. This is institutional insanity, and I urge the people in this country to wake up before they experience what is now going on in northern Japan: uninhabitable territory, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands at risk of cancer, enormous economic loss. And for what?

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

The Helen Thomas Playboy Interview

**BUMPED – TM NOTE BELOW**

Well, this is going to make heads explode.

Not sure if Gateway Pundit and Weasel Zippers went off simultaneously or in contagion fashion with Pajamas Media.

The interview with 90 year-old Thomas is out in April, but snippets are available, with much more at the link.

On the situation in Palestine: “Everybody knows my feelings that the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way. Sure, the Israelis have a right to exist – but where they were born, not to come and take someone else’s home. I’ve had it up to here with the violations against the Palestinians…[The Palestinians] are incarcerated and living in an open prison. I say to the Israelis, ‘Get out of people’s homes!’ It’s unacceptable to have soldiers knocking on a door at three in the morning and saying, ‘This is my home.’ And forcing people out of homes they’ve lived in for centuries? What is this? How can anybody accept it? I mean, Jewish-only roads? [She later corrected herself to say Israeli-only roads.] Would anyone tolerate something like that in America? White-only roads?”

On Palestinian violence against the Israelis: “Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone. But who wouldn’t fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation. Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes – by Israelis – and into refugee camps.”

On American support of Israel: “We keep giving Israel everything. Our government bribes the Israelis by saying, ‘Please come to the [negotiating] table and we’ll give you this and we’ll give you that’…Why do you have to bribe people to do the right thing? I don’t want my government bribing anybody. I want them demanding. Stop all this aid to Israel when they’re killing people!…Why do they send my American tax dollars to perpetuate it?”

On Jews: “I think they’re wonderful people. They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist.

I wonder how many people understand the difference between anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist?

Ms. Thomas also adamantly rejects that she’s retired: “I will never bow out of journalism.”

As for her opinion of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, she doesn’t think much of what they’ve done as liberals:

On her belief that Hillary Clinton and President Obama would be liberal: “I thought, naively perhaps, that [Hillary Clinton] and Obama would bring change, that they would be different. I assumed wrongly that they would be liberal because he’s black and she’s a woman. It’s maddening.”

Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are liberals. That’s because to get in a position of power in the Democratic Party you’ve got to be a Blue Dog, because of corporate interests and the media elite who pontificate ad nauseam about how entitlements have to be cut, with conventional wisdom allowing for no sane case to be made that there is no reason to cut Social Security or tinker with it. A case in point is watching Mike Barnicle’s head explode on “Morning Joe” yesterday when talking about Sen. Reid’s line in the sand on Social Security.

Now that Democrats are called “progressives,” never mind these same people sold out women on health care, there is a lot less meaning to liberal, because the former is afraid to be labeled the latter, fear being the operative emotion. The Right ruined “liberal” a long time ago, so the talking points go. But considering what congressional progressives did on health care, caving on Bush tax cuts, and generally revealing they have no spine to stand up against Pres. Obama’s rightward lurch, I’m not all that impressed. As for the heroes on the movement progressive side, that they can’t come up with a candidate to challenge Obama on the merits of his rightward march isn’t very heartening. Caving to conservatives, starting with the leader of the Democratic Party, which is exactly what progressives have done, isn’t exactly doing the Left any favors.

Of course, since I’m just a political analyst and writer, not a movement progressive, I can criticize with impunity, because I won’t be the one out there on the line taking on a sitting Democratic president whose reelection is his to lose and over which no challenger can win. Hey, but this is my job, so there you go.

Whether you agree or disagree with Helen Thomas, good for Hugh Hefner for giving her a platform. Political controversy is a lot more interesting than his engagement announcement, as is supporting a woman whose journalism career has spanned over five decades.

It’s also nice to see a woman at 90 sounding off instead of yet another crazy white man.

TM NOTE: I find the comments by some in this forum abhorrent and anti-Semitic. Intelligent debate doesn’t need to include this type of vitriol. However, this is an open forum, which does provide a window, as well as a point of learning. The anti-Semitism Ms. Thomas unleashes speaks for itself and is something that disgusts me. It’s equal to the vile things said about Palestinians. Neither extreme helps the dialogue in the least. I apologize to readers for comments that are offensive or hurtful, which inevitably say more about the writer than anything. Free speech protects both around here up to a point.

Read full story · Comments { 47 }

Headline of the Week




or


The Daily Mail story is deeply depressing.

David Sanger has been a must read during this unfolding nightmare.

The decision to raise the level came two days after the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned publicly that the situation at the crippled plant was much bleaker than Japanese officials had indicated, either because they were less worried or playing down the scope of the problems for fear of sparking panic. – Japan Raises Nuclear Crisis Warning Level Retroactively

The UK Guardian warned earlier in the week that a “cover-up” was likely in play.

Honorable mention goes to the Wall Street Journal, because of the title of the op-ed they did today. I’m absolutely stunned it took the Right so long to weigh in with this one.


The WSJ‘s dig of Obama “throwing little bones to its left” is as priceless as it is accurate. But since politics is inevitably about practicality and not perfection it will also likely work.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Wisconsin Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order On Union Law

**UPDATED**

The union-busters get blocked, at least for the moment.

Via JSonline, with the tweet below CNN’s Erick Erickson’s response.



Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.

Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state’s open meetings law.

Sumi said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

“It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law),” she said.

Since Sumi’s ruling revolves around the open meetings law it’s pretty obvious Republicans can go back in and try it again.

Of course, if/when that happens, will we also see a replay of the protests and quorum avoidance from Democrats, workers, and their allies? That seems fairly likely. – Steve Benen

Benen’s likely correct.

On another note and to add, just got this via email, with the Greater Wisconsin Committee targeting Gov. Scott Walker’s chummy relationship with a judge, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court election nears on April 5th.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Obama Seen Moving in Right Direction

Of course, the key word is “right.”

From Ron Brownstein:

… But even in groups that have been skeptical of the president, pluralities believe that he is moving in the right direction. Independents, seniors, and college-educated white men all broke solidly for Republicans in the 2010 midterm landslide. But about 30 percent of each group said they believed that Obama’s approach to office was improving. In each case, that was at least double the share that said his performance was deteriorating.

Those sentiments didn’t translate to gains for Obama on one measure: Just 40 percent of registered voters who were polled said they would vote to reelect him if the 2012 election were held today, compared with 50 percent who said they are now inclined to vote for someone else. That’s virtually unchanged from the results in each of the three previous Heartland Monitor polls that asked the question in 2010.

The moral of this story is by adopting Republican voodoo, extend the Bush tax cuts, economics Pres. Obama brought back the Right side of the 2010 midterm electorate that bolted. He’s not done squat for the deficit, but that’s coming after he gets reelected, when he finally gets to target Social Security, without the fig leaf of pretending he cares about cuts, as he continues to ignore revenue.

So what Obama’s rightward lurch is doing and will continue to do for the Democrat Party and its principles is another story entirely.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

If Only NPR Would Have Mounted a Defense

It’s really hard for me to get exercised about an organization that folded in on itself so quickly its opposition took it down without a fight. That Democrats and progressives like Rep. Weiner are coming to NPR’s aid is fine, but they should have mounted their own defense. They obviously didn’t learn anything from O’Keefe’s ACORN take down.

When O’Keefe’s fake Muslim video hit the fan NPR couldn’t seem to wait to throw their own people under the bus.

At least the latest conservative calamity from O’Keefe has been averted, though I never have understood why George Soros is such a lightning rod. That he’s been giving to NPR for years is hardly a secret.

So, it’s back to the drawing board for O’Keefe after his latest video proved a dud.

Too bad NPR couldn’t bring it to mount this defense themselves, but instead left it to supporters, proving once again that if you give wingnuts an inch they’ll take you down, even if they have to edit the video to do it.

By my viewing, Schiller said some legitimately bad stuff, and O’Keefe edited it, like a bad reality-TV show, to look even worse.

But wait! O’Keefe did post the full video online, didn’t he? Nobody forced him to! Why would he put it up if he had something to hide?

For starters, he was already suspect for having selectively edited his famous ACORN expose videos, not to mention planning a “sting” that would have involved sexually humiliating a CNN reporter. And while it wasn’t his, the deceptively edited Andrew Breitbart tape of Shirley Sherrod is still in people’s minds. If O’Keefe hadn’t posted the source video, it would have invited suspicion.

Instead he posted it and took the chance that most people would watch the edited video (or just clips from it on the news); that reporters, pressed for time with a stack of other assignments, would cover the edited video; that blogs (including, I will admit, this one) would link to those reports; and that by the time anyone took the time to go over the full video, the narrative would be established, the quotes stuck in people’s minds and the ideological battle won.

I mean, Jesus, look how long this post is already–and I’ve only covered a few minutes of a two-hour tape of four people eating lunch. It took me a few hours to watch–transcribing, finding sections, re-watching scenes–analyze and write up.

O’Keefe handed Republicans NPR in the House, because they refused to mount their own defense. Hard to pine away for any organization that lazy.

If NPR doesn’t think their mission is important enough to go to the mat from the onset they haven’t much of a chance against the Right.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Obama and Hillary, the Ongoing Saga

An article circulating today has one kernel of truth, though I can’t vouch for the rest of it. It revisits Pres. Obama’s performance last weekend from the Gridiron dinner. Great marketing stunt from Murdoch’s minions over at The Daily.

In “Oh, Hill No” comes this bit of stand-up from Pres. Obama, which refers to Clinton’s feelings about the Libyan rebels:

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

There is something vaguely insulting and condescending when Pres. Obama makes these types of remarks, crafting a picture of Clinton outside his presidential window trying to get his attention in the dead of night. It reflects a callousness of a Cabinet member that’s been a hallmark of Obama’s general disrespect for serious members of his Administration who are diligently enforcing his policies. It also reveals why Bill Daley is trying to reach out to repair relations with Obama’s Cabinet, because the boss can’t be bothered.

Now, Hillary Clinton is a great sport and I doubt she gave a shit one way or another. But that’s not really the point.

It did, however, give an excuse for people to impart more from Clinton’s interview with Wolf Blitzer, which is exactly what the article was supposed to do in order to get people linking and talking about the story. Philippe Reines is quoted as saying “He asked, she answered. Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.” That’s absolutely true and the interview style was pure Clinton, especially at a point in her State gig when she’s looking to wrap it up.

The fact is Sec. Clinton got stung when she went out on a limb for Mubarak to state his government was “stable,” siding with a long time friend and ally of the Clintons that goes back to her husband’s Administration. What made matters worse is that when she first got to Egypt this week, a group of young Egyptians refused to meet with her because of it.

After Egypt Clinton revealed how much she’d learned.

There is no secret that Clinton is more hard-nosed when it comes to foreign policy. She’s also decisive and knows her mind, as well as not being afraid to stick her neck out. That also makes her part of the group of foreign policy leaders who has a very different view of American presence in the world, which is involvement versus Obama’s standoffishness, which is getting quite a bit of criticism as the events in the Mideast expand outward.

It was seen earlier this week when a close Clinton associate Anne-Marie Slaughter slammed Pres. Obama for “fiddling” on Libya.

But Clinton’s attitude likely has nothing to do with the fact that “she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up.” Sounds to me like someone in Hillaryland is a bit upset with Obama, which doesn’t mean Hillary is or would say so to anyone other than the people closest to her, someone like Cheryl Mills who would never utter a peep, let alone give the story to Murdoch’s people.

To put a finer point on it, The Daily’s article is loaded with the typical drivel that reminds me of what happened during the ’08 campaign when Clinton insiders couldn’t keep their mouths shut, with leaks blowing sky high every time Hillary turned around, causing her campaign to look like a bunch of amateurs, which didn’t do much for Clinton’s leadership quotient either. The “Clinton insider” The Daily talked to didn’t even know the difference between “Secretaries of State” and “Secretary of States,” the latter causing Murdoch’s people to have to issue a correction or maybe it’s Murdoch’s writer who is clueless.

Because in case you weren’t paying attention, Pres. Obama did make up his mind and he said he wasn’t doing anything in Libya unless the international community led the way. People didn’t like that, with events unfolding from there, including the Arab League asking for a no-fly zone, which is exactly what Obama was asserting needed to happen, with the U.N. voting to authorized strikes in Libya today.

The United States, originally leery of any military involvement in Libya, became a strong proponent of the resolution, particularly after the Arab League approved a no-fly zone, something that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called a “game changer.”U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

It may be too late for some, but the U.S. playing global cop is the neoconservative and Rush Limbaugh way, not Obama’s. Of course, it’s put David Gergen off his chocolate Ensure, but those are the breaks.

What is inspiring Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton to head for the door come 2012 is that she’s tired of the exhausting travel that would kick anyone’s ass over time.

As for the “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything” line, it’s pure 20th century Rupert Murdoch “Page 6″ misogyny. As if Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t play grandmother and run the world.

That’s precisely what she’ll do once she’s done with State and begins her international women’s organization, which will take on the seminal charge of her life, enforcing human rights are women’s rights, and kicking anyone’s ass that gets in her way.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

What Erskine Bowles Won’t Admit

Mr. Bowles had harsh words for fellow Democrats. He dismissed the idea that raising taxes alone might help erase the deficit, saying “raising taxes doesn’t do a dern (sic) thing” to address health care costs that are projected to be a big driver of future fiscal problems. – Bowles Predicts Support for Deficit Deal

Jonathan Chait has a good piece up on this subject. One main item stands out among several good points he makes.

The one step that actually would reduce the deficit substantially and in the correct time frame is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I can’t think of a good fiscal rationale for Bowles to dismiss that, though the political logic of doing so is clear enough.

Chait goes on to demolish Bowles’s health care cost argument, which is to set a federal cap on health care costs, something that’s completely nonsensical.

The Affordable Care Act has a wide-ranging series of reforms to transform the incentive structure of insurers, hospitals and physicians, so as to control the long-term rise in costs. Bowles-Simpson just says, we’re only going to pay so much and no more, without doing anything to ensure that the cost of the care actually stays within those bounds.

Yglesias has more.

Both Democrats and Republicans, but especially those on the debt commission led by Bowles and Simpson, are making economic decisions based on politics, particularly 2012 presidential politics.

We’ve got an entire political class cheered on by traditional media yakkers who continue to pontificate about cutting entitlements and discretionary spending while ignoring the need to tap obvious revenue availability in the millionaire and billionaire brackets, but also including corporate tax areas where loopholes abound to let corporations hide their assets and pay squat in taxes.

Democrats, led by Barack Obama, showed callous disregard for fiscal sense when they caved to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Erskine Bowles is pissed off at people on the Left who insist on raising taxes for mil-billionaires, while he sits on his flabby derriere supporting the Bush tax cuts and declaring frivolous federal caps on health care that won’t hold. I’ll allow that the man is supposed to know finance, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what he’s pushing is for presidential election purposes and courting independents. It hardly matters who’s in the White House if Pres. Obama is going to endorse Republican economic boondoggles like extending the Bush tax cuts, which don’t solve our problems.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }