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

Leading Conservatives Come to Romney’s Defense

By on 17 March 2011

**UPDATED**

There are fewer people more important on the Tea Party side of Republican politics than Sen. Jim DeMint. With 2012 revving up, he’s the first to come to the defense of Mitt Romney. From The Hill:

…But leading conservatives, including supporters of Romney during his 2008 presidential run, argue that the Massachusetts plan isn’t a deal-breaker.

“One of the reasons I endorsed Romney [in 2008] is his attempts to make private health insurance available at affordable prices,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), a GOP kingmaker.

DeMint blames Democrats in the Massachusetts State Legislature for adding many of the features to Romney’s plan that many on the right decry. …

There are many more joining DeMint, including former Sen. Judd Gregg who says he’s still “a big fan” of Romney. This is important to Mitt Romney’s chances, but also to Republican hopes of not getting blown out in 2012.

One connected Democratic insider I spoke to said it best:

“If Romney can get through the primaries, he’s very dangerous. Obama has never faced a politically competent Republican before. …”

That’s really Romney’s whole ballgame in a nutshell.

Others are pointing to Gallup’s recent polling showing there’s a chance for Republicans in 2012. As I’ve written before, if they had a Reagan they’d beat Obama in a walk, but they don’t.

Considering the wacky Republicans jumping into the 2012 race so far, at least some conservatives have decided that following Rush Limbaugh down the tubes is not the best idea.

UPDATE: Well, this didn’t take long:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) “would never consider” endorsing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president again in 2012 unless Romney repudiates the health reforms he sought as governor, a source close to DeMint said Thursday. A source close to the conservative icon emphasized that, despite comments to The Hill indicating that Romney shouldn’t shoulder all the political blame for the Massachusetts healthcare plan, DeMint wouldn’t endorse Romney again unless he admits the plan was mistaken. – DeMint won’t back Romney without repudiation of Mass. health law

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Wisconsin Democrats Do What DC Democrats Don’t

By on 17 March 2011



Kick ass and put Republicans on their heels.

Forget giving to Obama’s reelection campaign, there are far worthier groups who actually support Democratic principles. They’re responsible for the ad shown above.

Markos, who follows state actions very closely, predicted this. From Sam Stein:

Both national and Wisconsin-based Republican operatives tell the Huffington Post the party is being dramatically outworked and out-organized by Democrats in the recall campaigns being launched against state Senators.

The operatives, who raised their concerns out of hope it would jar the GOP into assertiveness, argue complacency has taken over after Governor Scott Walker successfully shepherded his anti-collective bargaining bill into law. While the Wisconsin Democratic Party, with major assists from progressive groups and unions, has harnessed resentment towards the governor into a full-throttled effort to recall eight GOP Senators, neither the enthusiasm nor organizational acumen exists on the Republican side of the aisle.

“It’s clear that Democrats and liberal organizations are engaging in an attempt to make recall more than a mere hypothetical possibility for some Wisconsin Republicans,” said Liz Mair, Vice President of Hynes Communications and former RNC Online Communications Director, who has worked closely with officials on the ground in Wisconsin. “Even though Governor Walker acted to end the impasse, Republicans and conservatives should not be acting like this is done and dusted.”

Liz Mair tells it straight in my experiences with her. It’s a damning indictment of Republicans in Wisconsin who don’t seem to get they’ve not only overplayed their hand, but helped Democrats set up for the long battle. But it’s also a story of Democrats getting it right in Wisconsin.

“Sure, the first battle was won with the passing of the bill,” the activist added, “but the war is not won. If they come in and recall some of those state senators and none of the Democrats get knocked out, that’s not good for the republicans at all…it is a bit of a mystery to me. You would think they would want to make sure all these [recall] efforts are successful.”

The data bears out the notion of a disparity. Reid Magney, a spokesman for the non-partisan Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, described the recall efforts by Democrats against Republican state Senators as more organized than their counterparts. Whereas GOP-run recalls registered at different times and originated from a random spattering of groups–a Utah-based conservative organization was forced to find a partner inside Wisconsin to make its petitions legally acceptable–all of the Democratic activity has run through the state party.

There is no one on the progressive movement side of things that I marvel at more than Adam Green. This guy is something else and he’s not wasted a second inside Wisconsin. Forget the DNC, this is where money on the Left should go.

Democracy for America, the group started by Howard Dean following his failed 2004 election, said it has raised nearly $800,000 to run ads and help with the recall campaign, which communications director Levana Layendecker described as “unprecedented for a non-election year issue.” In addition, 2,500 volunteers have signed up with DFA to help gather signatures. The group, with 25,000 members in Wisconsin alone, expects that number to only grow.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, along with DFA, is pouring massive resources into an ad campaign to keep momentum behind the recall efforts. Their efforts include a new spot focusing on three GOP state senators (Alberta Darling, Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper).

Union groups, while legally prohibited from working with the Democratic Party on the recount, have still pushed to keep the issue front and center, as have a host of other progressive institutions.

“I think that the governor really did wake a sleeping giant,” said Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org. “People feel that what happened was not just a horrible attack but the courage of regular people standing up and getting in the way. That was what electrified folks. It was the first time we had seen anything like that.”

With Pres. Obama’s reelection campaign unworthy of any excitement or of financial support, Democrats and progressives have other places to focus their efforts starting with groups helping in states where Democrats aren’t afraid to be Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

2012: How Does Obama ‘Fire Up’ His Base?

By on 16 March 2011

cross-posted over at TheModerateVoice

“[...] We’ve spent a lot of time waiting for Godot when it comes to the Obama White House, and we kind of — to some degree — have to internalize the idea that, you know what? That’s probably not the way to go,” Weiner said. “We have to start initiating some of this.” [...] … .. “The problem is the negotiator-in-chief and where he’ll end up, and whether we can put some steel in his spine,” (Rep. Peter DeFazio) said. – Anthony Weiner: Obama Is ‘Not A Values Guy’, by Amanda Terkel

Back in January I did a column about Democratic identification in the era of Obama. It was grim, very, very grim. In fact, Democratic Party I.D. according to Gallup is at a 22-year low.

So when the AP’s Charles Babington did a piece yesterday entitled “Obama Team Looks For New Ways To Fire Up President’s Base,” it didn’t come as a surprise.

… Obama acknowledged the challenge last week in Boston. “Somebody asked me, how do we reinvigorate the population, the voter, after two very tough years?” he told Democratic donors. “How do we recapture that magic that got so many young people involved for the very first time in 2008?”

One answer, the president said, is to persuade hardcore liberals to swallow their anger over political compromises the administration reached with Republicans, even when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

[...] Some Democrats say they may need luck to replicate the passionate turnout of Obama’s first campaign. The often-stated claim that voters would embrace the health care law once it began taking effect has proven mostly untrue. But another year may change that, these Democrats say.

For now, the Obama team is unveiling few new ideas specifically keyed to firing up core constituencies. A recent White House conference call urged young voters to hold roundtables, which administration officials may attend, to discuss priorities and offer feedback.

Beyond that, Obama eventually plans large rallies similar to those in 2008. They create showy spectacles that excite young voters, but they also serve a fundraising role. People who enter the stadiums or buy Obama T-shirts are asked to provide their names and contact information, which are used later to request donations and volunteer activities. [...]

The only “luck” Pres. Obama and his reelection team can hope to get is that Sarah Palin is the nominee, something that is currently being battled out between Rush Limbaugh and the Republican establishment.

It’s long past time to disabuse camp Obama of any delusions they may have about replicating the “passionate turnout of Obama’s first campaign.” Not going to happen.

No one has done more to obliterate the Democratic brand more than Pres. Obama, which in turn has annihilated the passion once felt for candidate Obama.

A health care bill “accomplishment” that now requires wavers for companies, with the President even going soft on the absurd mandate that should never have been written into it considering the Affordable Care Act was a conglomeration of private insurance giveaways that amounted to a monopolized trap for the American public. There are some good things amidst the junk, but the fact that Democrats didn’t just pass those and instead stuck us with a monstrosity derisively named “ObamaCare” reveals their legislative incompetence.

That Pres. Obama missed an opportunity to make his first term about a real energy independence shot proves further he has no vision except what unfolds through time. Not even Japan’s nuclear catastrophe has changed his mind on nuclear energy, even as we find Japan being far too conservative with their estimates on just how bad things are over there.

There was also the Democratic nonchalance that allowed Stupak-Pitts to win out over the women who regularly elect Democrats, which was just another insult delivered by Obama through an unneeded Executive Order that has emboldened states across the country to target women. That it all began at the hands of the first female Speaker of the House, who was once a vaunted darling of the liberal feminist crowd, is an added insult.

One of the main pluses about “ObamaCare” is that it has tied Mitt Romney in knots, because Democrats basically created an evil twin to RomneyCare, which still could be a real problem for Romney in the primaries. However, if Romney can get through the primaries that’s another story. As a very well connected Democrat told me recently, Barack Obama has never faced a “politically competent Republican,” which is what makes Mitt Romney so dangerous. It’s also likely why Chris Cilizza wrote his piece about conservatives moving over to Mitt.

Then there is Pres. Obama’s bipartisanship fig leaf covering his corporate soul that let Wall Street off the hook and too big to fail still a reality. The appointment of Bill Daley sealed the deal, which also sent the message that when it comes to importance, firing up the base to Obama actually means the money men and women, not progressives and liberals, who are last in line just after independents.

The 2010 midterms were delivered to the Right because Pres. Obama never could quite figure out what the election was about for Democrats. Besides, he’d been moving Right since his inauguration, because his natural place on the political dial is Right.

Then in December, after refusing to make the tax argument for November, Pres. Obama led the Democrats to cave on Bush tax cut extensions that added to the deficit while not solving squat, but in the process had Democrats embracing the voodoo economics of Republicanism that tax cuts solve economic woes. It didn’t faze Barack Obama one iota that this simple act of embracing tax cut economics obliterated 10 years of work by Democrats, not to mention ignored what Bill Clinton accomplished in the ’90s by raising taxes. (You’d think Reagan finally sucking it up to raise taxes would have been an inspiration for Obama.)

On top of all of this is Pres. Obama’s vacillating on any number of issues from DADT to Afghanistan to Gitmo, not to mention his incomprehensible lack of leadership during the BP oil disaster, which is never mentioned, nor was Sect. Ken Salazar’s ineptitude ever addressed.

There is no one I know who can explain just what Pres. Obama stands for as a Democrat. He even concocted the debt commission in order to handle Social Security on the sly, which any political analyst worth his or her salt knows Obama can’t touch before 2012, but which anyone with half a brain should realize he will tinker with if reelected.

None of this, however, has inspired so called progressives to challenge Pres. Obama with a primary opponent. That’s because of the fear of what African American voters would do, as if that’s a good enough reason to challenge any sitting president, regardless of race, if he has screwed up so badly as to now render the words Democratic Party meaningless.

What is it that Lawrence O’Donnell says? Some things are worth fighting for even if you lose.

In the era of Obama, his worth is seen as more important than the principles the Democratic Party has stood for since F.D.R.

Pres. Obama’s reelection depends on Republicans choosing from the current crop of lame-ass candidates currently in the news, any of whom he can beat as things stand right now.

I just don’t see Obama’s base from 2008 getting fired up, with many who voted in ’08 not even going to show up. Who can blame them?

As for disgruntled Democrats and progressives, oh, they’ll vote in 2012. But that’s thanks to the Democrats in Wisconsin and other states who are showing spine Barack Obama lacks. However, the likelihood that these same Democrats won’t bother to vote for Obama for president is very real.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Hillary: No Second Term as Secretary of State

By on 16 March 2011



If asked she will not serve.

From the interview with Wolf Blitzer, transcript at the link:

Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?

No

Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?

No

Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?

No

Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?

No

I tried to tell people SecDef was out of the question at the time the rumors were flying. It was a preposterous notion. Yes, I had a impeccable source, but frankly, I didn’t need it, because it was a no-brainer.

If Pres. Obama wins a second term, Hillary Rodham Clinton will move on. As I wrote many, many months ago, her next gig will likely be taking a breather, followed by setting up an international women’s organization that will do what no one else has done before.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Sarah Palin Still Popular with GOP Primary Voters

By on 16 March 2011

The headlines out of the WashingtonPost/ABC poll are misleading at best.

For the first time in Post-ABC News polling, fewer than six in 10 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light, down from a stratospheric 88 percent in the days after the 2008 Republican National Convention and 70 percent as recently as October.

In one sense, the poll still finds Palin near the top of a list of eight potential contenders for the GOP nomination. The former vice presidential candidate scores a 58 percent favorable rating, close to the 61 percent for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and 60 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and better than the 55 percent that onetime House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) received.

The headlines below range from CNN to WashingtonPost.com, as well as Mediaite and OutsideTheBeltway.



The “in one sense” caveat that leads to the reality that Sarah Palin remains only 2 or 3 points behind Huckabee and Romney, respectively, reveals just how hard it is for traditional media and others to admit that Palin is very much in the running for the nomination.

Too many political analysts covering the 2012 Republican horse race just can’t tell it straight.

The real issue for Palin is her unfavorable spike, which goes to her general election electability quotient, that renders her virtually unelectable nationally.

But Palin’s unfavorable numbers are significantly higher than they are for any of these possible competitors. Fully 37 percent of all Republicans and GOP-leaning independents now hold a negative view of her, a new high.

In another first, fewer than 50 percent of Republican-leaning independents — 47 percent — hold favorable views of Palin.

In contrast, Mitt Romney, the Establishment’s man and big biz hope for the Right, has repaired his image since ’08, especially with conservative voters. Via Chris Cilizza:

Sixty percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the potential GOP presidential candidate favorably, while just 21 percent see him in an unfavorable light.

That’s an improvement from where he stood in early January 2008 – in the heart of the GOP primary fight – when 55 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents viewed him favorably and 36 percent felt unfavorably toward him. And back in November 2007, Romney’s favorable score stood at 42 percent while 28 percent felt unfavorably toward him in Post/ABC data.

Perhaps more important for Romney as he gears up for a second presidential bid in 2012 are his numbers among the most conservative segments in the GOP. Sixty-eight percent of self-identified conservatives view Romney favorably; his numbers are even higher among the portion of that group who identify themselves as “very” conservative – with 71 percent seeing the former governor in a favorable light.

Slick Mitt remains the strongest, though there is little proof he can beat Barack Obama. That’s the Republican problem, because none of their candidates can. As for The New Republic and others who believe Tim Pawlenty is viable, it’s laughable considering the man is a pipsqueak of a national politician.

So since Romney is unlikely to best Obama, it really is puzzling why the Right would look backward to someone like Mitt Romney instead of looking forward to a candidate who would begin to build a new era for the Republican Party. That new era is signified by politicians like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, the latter still the leading candidate for vice president among them all, because Christie doesn’t have the discipline for veep.

What this proves to me is that 2012 is the Republican’s congressional year to take back the Senate and retain the House, with the real fight coming in 2016. That’s when Christie, but also Jeb Bush, even Marco Rubio looking at the top of the ticket, will come forward for the mother of all Republican battles.

It’s another reason why Sarah Palin, if she is ever going to run for president, needs to do it now.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Donald Trump Roasted… (because we all need a laugh)

By on 16 March 2011

“So, you wanna run for president now? Wouldn’t be first time you’ve kicked a black family out of their home.” – Snoop Dog, Comedy Central Roasts Donald Trump


Yesterday he was “unplugged” for Human Events.

Then Seth McFarlane killed last night on Comedy Central, though the above clip is definitely blue, so if you’re sensitive skip it. Donald Trump was roasted to a crisp, with McFarland delivering a tour de force performance, while others on stage veered into trash comedy, some of which was just rank and not that funny.

It was uproarious whenever McFarlane took the stage.

So, consider this a moment to take a breath from all the bad news.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

General Electric Mark 1 Reactor ‘Cheaper and Easier’ to Build

By on 16 March 2011



That’s the headline on WashingtonPost.com.

Perhaps now all the people who were talking about “context” will put the continuing catastrophe in the same light, as in nuclear disaster that was foretold, sort of like BP, but this time instead of wildlife and habitat we have uninhabitable for humans as a sub-heading: Experts Had Long Criticized Potential Weakness in Design of Stricken Reactor.

From the New York Times this morning:

The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a “Mark 1” nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.

Now, with one Mark 1 containment vessel damaged at the embattled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and other vessels there under severe strain, the weaknesses of the design — developed in the 1960s by General Electric — could be contributing to the unfolding catastrophe.

[...] G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

Let’s see how MSNBC covers this in context.

It’s amazing how stupid and stubborn our leaders, political and business, remain. We knew that ultra-deep water drilling was dangerous, yet the Obama administration had no problem letting BP, a company with safety violation issues, go ahead in the Gulf. Now comes a 1960-era General Electric plant, which had problems from the start, putting an entire culture in Japan at risk.

In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

We can only hope it is the “end of nuclear power,” but something tells me that’s hardly true. Pres. Obama has been a recipient of the industry’s bounty, with Republicans a major mouthpiece for the nuclear industry.

Whether fossil fuels, ultra-deep drilling, as well as fighting wars for oil, now including dangerous nuclear practices, there doesn’t seem to be any amount of carnage, environmental or human, that will convince leaders that green energy should be our 21st century moon shot.

It simply doesn’t matter where you look on the political spectrum. All you see is small-minded, short-sided people who refuse to take the leap to 21st century realities.

The other issue is that your average American simply wants cheaper gas, cheaper energy, which will only empower the “clean coal” industry, which doesn’t exist.

Our nation is simply too stupid to understand that a gas tax and other taxes on mil-billionaires to help pay for alternative energy is the only way we’ll start looking at high speed rail and mass transit as a priority item instead of a budget item to be cut.

Updates appear in the following live video.



Free live streaming by Ustream

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Trivial Pursuits in Times of Peril

By on 15 March 2011

“For my Dad, America was the land of opportunity, where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one’s dreams,” Romney said in a high-profile New Hampshire speech earlier this month. He added: “The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and derring-do propelled our standard of living and economy past every other nation on earth. I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag.” – GOP 2012 theme: American ‘decline’

What’s playing out in Japan right now is overwhelming to comprehend. Looking at Libya, same thing, as Germany blocks an Anglo-French no-fly zone plan, while the Saudis sent troops into Bahrain, and today a report that Sect. Clinton was snubbed in Egypt. We’ve got our own domestic challenges too, so there are few places to turn for comfort.

During Rush Limbaugh’s first hour today he went on a bender about Pres. Obama’s NCAA bracket picks, which was a top item on Mike Allen’s Playbook this morning (where I get my early a.m. news), which NRO quickly picked up with a “Wow.” When I wrote about it today on Twitter, as I often do when I listen to the first hour of Rush, Politico’s Jonathan Martin responded that it was also on the top of Drudge, which stands to reason since Limbaugh often channels what’s on his front page. In the center column was PRESIDENT CHECKS OUT: FOCUS ON B-BALL BRACKETS… with a link to a weird little piece on Obama not being present enough as the world roils.

I’ll let you be the judge of whether Pres. Obama is doing his job, which is the crux of the Right’s argument today, joined by other anti-Obama sites, evidently believing that a moment spent on NCAA March Madness picks will mean the end of American greatness.

But I also won’t make light of the image issue being presented, because one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was elected is because at the end of Pres. Carter’s first term he seemed not on top of what was happening in the world, while considered responsible for America slipping. That’s the main theme of the GOP for 2012. Now all the Right needs is a Reagan.

However, the notion that Pres. Obama needs to be either looking grim and concerned or be hidden away for fear of seeming frivolous amidst Japan’s catastrophic nuclear challenge is not only ridiculous, but inconsistent with life itself.

Taking 30 minutes to enjoy the simple pleasures of life while Japan roils is not craven. It’s called living. Like him or not, approve of his politics or not, Pres. Obama is on the job 24/7, non-stop. To suggest that by taking a few moments out to honor the pleasures of sports is presidential sacrilege is misunderstanding the importance of trivial pursuits at times of great stress. So what if Pres. Obama plays golf on Saturday? George W. Bush did it all the time, which Rush and the Right never cared about.

Life is a pressure cooker. High stress jobs and situations make it even worse. Being president is beyond what any of us can imagine, especially today, and let’s hope one of Barack Obama’s plans is to live well beyond his presidency, not kill himself in the job.

Taking some time to enjoy life doesn’t mean a president or a person isn’t taking care of business. No one can immerse him- or herself in work constantly without eventually blowing a physical fuse.

It’s not a sin to enjoy life even when others are suffering. In fact, it’s more important to appreciate the gifts of life when you’re spared tragedy and take the time to breathe in the bounty when fate passes you by.

As for the Republican 2012 message of “American ‘decline,’” if they had a candidate there is no doubt Pres. Obama is vulnerable for this type of marketing. People like the President, but his standoffish, non-engagement leadership style amidst world events exploding, with Americans used to our presidents inserting himself and our country across the globe, is not going down well with everyone.

A normal moment of trivial pursuit comes off as out of touch. Cue the Jimmy Carter theme music, which is exactly what Republicans are turning to with their 2012 “American ‘decline’” theme, which in times when people feel overwhelmed and powerless could resonate.

If only Republicans had a candidate who could sell the message, but they don’t, at least not yet.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Is It Time for Republicans to Take Trump Seriously?

By on 15 March 2011

Trump talks to Human Events. Below are snippets of what he said, which was part of a larger article entitled “Can Donald Trump Save America?”

Trump on Afghan war

When I look at Afghanistan and we build a highway, and we put a school at the end of the highway, they [Taliban] blow up the highway and they blow up the school. I want to invest money into our country, and I want to invest a lot of money into our military.

Trump on foreign policy

We don’t have to have our soldiers over there [in the Middle East] being blown up by land mines, and being blown up in the streets unfairly, sneak attacks always. It’s just not going to happen. With me we’re going to build the United States, and we’re going to have the strongest military that we’ve ever had.

Trump on George W. Bush

George Bush gave us Obama whether you like it or not. George Bush gave us Obama, without George Bush we don’t have Obama. So I’ve never been a fan of George Bush.

Trump on ObamaCare

If I run and if I win there will not be ObamaCare because it’s ruining a lot of companies. I have friends who own small companies, and they’re going to close those companies up because they can’t afford ObamaCare. It will not exist very long if I’m president.

Trump on entitlements

When this country becomes profitable again, we can take care of our sick; we can take care of our needy. We don’t have to cut Social Security; we don’t have to cut Medicare and Medicaid. We can take care of people that need to be taken care of. And I’ll be able to do that.

Trump on unions

I grew up with unions. New York is largely union, and I sort of spent a lot of time in Florida, which is also a union right to work state so it’s a different kind of thing. But I’ve had great relationships with unions, and I’ve made good deals. I’ve made a lot of money, I mean, I’ve made many billions of dollars and in many cases I’ve been dealing with unions. So, really, collective bargaining doesn’t bother me so much.

Trump’s got a something similar to what Chris Christie offers: bluntness. It’s the Right’s antidote to Obama’s word salads and standoffish leadership style.

Social conservatives are going to hate this guy, even though he’s had a conversion to pro-life, which he freely admits was changing his mind.

But Trump makes Tim Pawlenty look like a seventh grader. Republicans could do worse than Donald Trump and likely will.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Stripping Unions of Power Was Just for Starters

By on 15 March 2011

Wisconsin’s Sen. Scott Fitzgerald has now decided that Democratic votes won’t count.

“Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate,” Fitzgerald wrote in an email Monday afternoon that was posted on wispolitics.com “Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal.”

The senators are free, however, to “attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislations, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition,” Fitzgerald added.

However, my favorite story on Wisconsin is State Sen. Hopper’s wife throwing him under the bus to keep herself safe. Hopper is one of the Republicans being targeted for recall and he’s trailing against any generic Democrat, as you can see from the chart at the top.

This is a classic:

In a statement to The Reporter, Hopper’s wife, Alysia Hopper, said her estranged husband moved out of their Rienzi Road home in May 2010 and lives “mostly in Madison.” Court records indicate that Randy Hopper filed a petition for divorce in August. Hopper’s official Senate Web page lists the couple’s home at W5192 Rienzi Road as the senator’s official address.

In light of death threats against Randy Hopper and protests generated by Hopper’s support and the support of other Republicans for the budget repair bill, Alysia Hopper said she wanted the public to know her husband no longer lives with her in Fond du Lac. Several websites have reported that Alysia Hopper approached protesters at her home Saturday and told them her husband no longer resides in the home.

Republicans in Wisconsin are handing the state back to Democrats one blunder at a time, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Field for 2012

By on 15 March 2011

It’s true that Palin relies on shallow talking points, but where do these come from? They come from the institutions and leaders of the movement that is supposedly so concerned with ideas. Palin is disinterested in ideas, and she has flourished in the conservative media for years. She does rely on shallow talking points, and legions of conservative pundits have repeatedly defended her against charges that she is ignorant and incurious. Everything about her public persona since she received the VP nomination has been built up around tapping into resentment, grievance, and identity politics, all of which are in one way or another antithetical to critical thinking and substantive discussion of policy, and for a while most of her new detractors said nothing or gushed about how wonderful she was. – Palin and the “Party of Ideas”

Mike, Michele, Newt and Sarah lead the 2012 pack. “Frontrunner” Mitt Romney is well back of the populist wannabes.



Mr. Huckabee is the only one out of the four who could possibly wage a decent fight against Obama. However, in the end will suburban Republican women vote for him? There are real doubts.

Sarah Palin finds herself slipping, which reveals a couple of things. The Republican establishment’s war on her is working, even if her own self-inflicted “blood-libel” wound was far worse. But also that her unwillingness to jump into the race early is allowing for others of her brand type to gain traction, specifically Michele Bachmann.

Republicans were hands off when Sarah Palin was leading them to victory in 2010. But looking to 2012 she presents real problems. The Republican boys’ club therefore has decided she’s finally outlived her usefulness.

All of this had Rush Limbaugh genuinely perplexed yesterday, while freaking out over Palin being compared to Al Sharpton. The transcript isn’t as stunning as listening to it live, but here it is: What’s the Problem with Palin?

[...] But this rising vitriol from the “conservative intellectual” bench is mystifying to me. (sigh) I don’t get this comparison to Al Sharpton. I don’t know where that comes from. That’s Matt Labash at the Weekly Standard. I don’t know where that comes from. What does Sharpton do? Would somebody point out one similarity between Al Sharpton and Sarah Palin? Where is the Tawana Brawley in Sarah Palin’s life? Where is that incident? Where are all the megaphone-lead rallies and protests? Where are those things? Where is the complement to the National Action Network and its annual convention in whatever else?

Where is this? Where are the lawsuits that Sharpton files against people? Well, they claim that she’s playing her cards. Where is her tax cheating, for example? Who is Sarah Palin shaking down? I mean, if we’re gonna start making these comparisons… (interruption) What was it you just shouted at me, H.R.? Well, that’s why they say she’s portraying herself as a victim because she’s firing back. They are saying that she should just shut up. In the aftermath of being blamed for this Arizona thing, she should have just shut up. The fact that she responded and reacted to it means that she’s feeling sorry for herself and is portraying herself as a victim — and that’s something that the left does: Portray themselves as victims.

She shoulda just been quiet and let the story ride itself out and let it go away and so forth as it would have. I used to think that a lot of this was just fear-based. (sigh) I’ve really had a tough time understanding this. To be honest, folks, I’ve had a tough time. I’m still not sure. I’m wondering if some of this is not rooted in the fear that our “conservative intellectuals” have that our current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls is kind of weak; and that, therefore, she may be the most popular among ‘em. But it’s like I told you: I love telling this story. A couple friends of mine who had recently met Palin — I’ve never met her. I’ve spoken to her on the phone once when we interviewed her for Limbaugh Letter, the newsletter when she had her book out.

Other than that I’d never talked to her. I’ve never met her. She did tell a funny story when I did interview her. She said that I met her father out in Palm Springs at one of the first two Bob Hope Chrysler Classic golf tournaments I played in as an amateur that some guy came up and asked me to sign a copy of my book for his daughter. Well, it turned out to be her dad getting the book signed for her and that she has that book in her office or her library in her home in Alaska. That’s the extent. I don’t know her. I’ve never spent any time with her.

But these people that I know here had spent an evening with her, and couple days later I met them for dinner — and, folks, these are rock-ribbed conservatives, huge donors and fundraisers, Reaganites. Their pedigree is unquestionable, and they said to me, “You know, dear, we met Sarah Palin. I think you would agree, dear, she just doesn’t have the heft. She’s much prettier in person than even on TV — you can’t escape noticing that — but, I don’t know. I think she’s just not presidential. Do you think, dear?” And, you know, I recalled what the circumstance was here. This is not a place to start an argument. I didn’t care to, didn’t want to spend that kind of time there.

I said, “Yeah, you know what? Give me four more years of Obama, instead of Palin.”

“W-w-what? What do you mean by that, dear?”

“Well, Sarah Palin is so damn embarrassing, I don’t know how I could vote for her. I might not even be able to say I’m a Republican if she gets the nomination!”

“Um, I’m not quite following you, dear.”

“Well, she’s so embarrassing, I guess if it’s Sarah Palin or Obama? Hell, give me Obama!” I finally said, “Look, I don’t understand all this. THE PROBLEM IS OBAMA! The Democrat Party is destroying the freaking country — sorry to yell here — and we’re sitting here sniping over Sarah Palin? I’d vote for Elmer Fudd if the Republicans nominated him, if Obama’s the Democrat.” So obviously there are elements of this that are personal that I don’t understand. Look, I could understand not wanting her to be the nominee, I can understand thinking there’s somebody better, but this? There’s an all-out assault on her by our guys that puzzles me — and now this latest to say that she’s Al Sharpton? Our version of Al Sharpton in Alaska?

So you guys gotta help me out out there. Somebody’s gonna have to explain this to me because it makes no sense. You know, I’m totally immersed in logic and common sense, and some of this doesn’t register that way for me. I don’t get it. I can think of — I’m not going to mention any names here — the Republican field, what is it, nine or ten people that are said to be interested in it. There are four or five of them that can’t hold a candle to her, as far as I’m concerned. But these guys don’t think there’s one. So I’m thinking: What did she do to them? Does she embarrass them? (interruption) Okay. (interruption) If she does embarrass them, what? (interruption) Okay, well, of course the liberals are gonna say she’s stupid. That’s enough for us to say, “Okay, we don’t want her,” ’cause the liberals are rejecting her so we’ve gotta dump her? Okay.

All right. Fine. Fine. Well, anybody else got any ideas, I’m open to ‘em. [...]

What Rush doesn’t get is that Republicans used Palin to get a win in 2010, but now that it’s time to think about nominating a presidential contender she’s outlived her usefulness, because the firmly believe she simply cannot win. But Rush’s blindness about Sarah Palin and her inability to beat Pres. Obama does point to something else. It could be that the Missouri-born blowhard simply doesn’t understand how anyone could vote for a black man.

The problem isn’t Sarah Palin. It’s today’s Republican Party.

[...] As long as she was useful prior to the midterms, the institutions, magazines, and leaders of the movement not only tolerated her, but actively promoted her and gave her typically glowing coverage. Those that couldn’t bring themselves to praise her went out of their way not to criticize her. Now that Palin may represent a political threat to Republican chances of regaining the White House, they are suddenly very concerned about her impact on the quality of conservative argument. Their concern would be interesting if it weren’t so belated and narrowly focused on Palin. When Moynihan made that statement about Republicans 30 years ago, it was true. Thirty years later, the label “party of ideas” has simply become another slogan that Republicans trot out in lieu of any policy ideas. – Palin and the “Party of Ideas”

The reason Rush Limbaugh doesn’t understand it all is because Palin’s ideology fits his and that means she’s a viable candidate for Republicans, which is Mr. Limbaugh’s world means she can automatically beat Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Japan: Fourth Reactor ‘Spewing’ Radiation

By on 15 March 2011

(CBS/AP) SOMA, Japan – A Japanese spokesman says a fourth reactor at a quake-damaged nuclear plant is on fire following an earlier explosion, and radiation is now spewing from it. The radiation level is now elevated to a point that may damage health, the spokesman said. – New explosion leads to spewing radiation



The third explosion in four days has now occurred, with the worst feared.

The New York Times‘ headline above on their latest story is enough to freak anyone out.

“It’s way past Three Mile Island already,” said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. “The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.” – The New York Times

The 12-mile contamination warnings seem tremendously optimistic if you’re listening to experts across news channels, no matter the station. Via Twitter around 11 pm EST last night, news organizations were evacuating the area around the Fukushima plant.

As for giving to Japan, don’t and here’s why, unless you want to give specifically to an organization like Doctors Without Borders.

…and whatever you do stay away from the quackery of the Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry” blog, which is writing the stuff of fiction and fantasy about radiation contamination in order to seemingly try to bolster the nuclear industry.

I’ve been tough on people talking about “context” and claiming nuclear is “safe” for many reasons, but mostly because we don’t know what we don’t know right now. The Guardian makes the case that there may be a cover up underway, which I put at the high end of probable.

… Nuclear experts have thrown doubt on the accuracy of official information issued about the Fukushima nuclear accident, saying that it followed a pattern of secrecy and cover-ups employed in other nuclear accidents. “It’s impossible to get any radiation readings,” said John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has worked for the UK government and been commissioned to report on the accident for Greenpeace International.

“The actions of the Japanese government are completely contrary to their words. They have evacuated 180,000 people but say there is no radiation. They are certain to have readings but we are being told nothing.” He said a radiation release was suspected “but at the moment it is impossible to know. It was the same at Chernobyl, where they said there was a bit of a problem and only later did the full extent emerge.”

According to some reports, 17 helicopter crewmen helping in rescue efforts were contaminated with low-level radiation, but Japanese officials declined to comment.

The country’s government has previously been accused of covering up nuclear accidents and hampering the development of alternative energy.

In a newly released diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks, politician Taro Kono, a high-profile member of Japan’s lower house, tells US diplomats that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry – the Japanese government department responsible for nuclear energy – has been “covering up nuclear accidents and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry”. [..]

Now that’s context.


Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse

By on 14 March 2011

Oh, for Christ’s sake.

That’s when things got really bad and really crazy. Alone, distraught, and frightened, Taylor confided in the nurse treating her that she hadn’t always been sure she’d wanted this baby, now that she was single and unemployed. She’d considered both adoption and abortion before ultimately deciding to keep the child. The nurse then summoned a doctor, who questioned her further about her thoughts on ending the pregnancy. Next thing Taylor knew, she was being arrested for attempted feticide. Apparently the nurse and doctor thought that Taylor threw herself down the stairs on purpose.

What’s “feticide”? In Iowa it’s “to intentionally terminate a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy.”

The good news? The D.A. decided not to prosecute.

This shit is never going to end.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Nuclear Politics in the Wake of Japan’s Catastrophe

By on 14 March 2011

Senior Obama administration officials said Monday that Obama remains committed to nuclear power, and that U.S. nuclear plants had been built to withstand the strain of strong storms and earthquakes. [...] Carney said Monday that although the crisis in Japan is still unfolding, the White House isn’t backing away from the proposed “clean” standard. He said that U.S. officials will incorporate information from Japan “into how we view safety and security of nuclear energy as a resource.” – White House says Obama won’t back off nuclear energy

Some of you may remember when my brother-in-law passed away. Steve was as smart and important as they get in the oil industry. Long before he suddenly died he told me one fact considered irrefutable by energy experts of all types: In our lifetime we will never get off of fossil fuels. Considering he was correct about many things, including that McCain “is an asshole,” this die hard Republican oil man never gave up on convincing me my siding with Al Gore and Robert Redford on environmental issues was ill conceived.

This picture is the back drop for today’s discussion on what’s going on in Japan right now. From the New York Times:

Industry executvies (sic) in touch with their counterparts in Japan Monday night grew increasingly alarmed about the risks posed by the No. 2 reactor.

“They’re basically in a full-scale panic” among Japanese power industry managers, said a senior nuclear industry executive. The executive is not involved in managing the response to the reactors’ difficulties but has many contacts in Japan. “They’re in total disarray, they don’t know what to do.”

Still, conventional wisdom building now relies on several things:

From another New York Times article:

Diablo Canyon has been embroiled in a bitter battle with local opponents seeking new seismic studies ahead of a decision to extend the plant’s operating license, which is due to expire in about 15 years. Opponents point in part to the discovery of a previously unknown fault about a mile offshore.

But Paul Flake, a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric, said that geological studies —both historical and projected — placed the maximum seismic strength of an earthquake near the plant at 6.1 to 6.5, and that the plant is designed to withstand a quake of up to 7.5 in magnitude. The quake off the coast of Japan measured 8.9.

Mr. Lochbaum added that other potential problems exist in nearly every region. “The Midwest has tornadoes, parts of the gulf experience hurricanes. There are places in the North where severe ice has caused problems. They all share the common thread of Mother Nature challenging the plants.”

Anthony R. Pietrangelo, a senior vice president and chief nuclear officer with the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group representing the nuclear power industry, said that the industry was keenly watching the Japanese situation and would readily revisit its own emergency procedures as new information and potential lessons emerged.

Barack Obama, as well as his pal David Axelrod, have strong ties to the nuclear industry. Candidate Obama lied to Iowa voters about it when no one was looking, well almost no one.

The conversation developing today so far convinces me that the U.S. and our politicians are not smart enough, independent of political bribery, or have the courage to embrace green energy so that 50 years from now those left to deal with the same challenges brought to man by nature’s wrath aren’t still putting people and the planet in danger.

Nuclear power is “safe” as long as it stays contained.

Nature always wins.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Sarah, Roger Ailes, and Republican 2012 Possibilities

By on 14 March 2011

From New York magazine, a report reveals that after the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy, Sarah Palin put in a call to Roger Ailes.

Before Sarah Palin posted her infamous “Blood Libel” video on Facebook on January 12, she placed a call to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. In the wake of the Tucson massacre, Palin was fuming that the media was blaming her heated rhetoric for the actions of a madman that left six people dead and thirteen others injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Palin told Ailes she wanted to respond, according to a person with knowledge of the call. It wasn’t fair the media was making this about her. Ailes told Palin that she should stay quiet.

“Lie low,” he said. “There’s no need to inject yourself into the story.”

With a Fox GOP debate on May 5 in South Carolina, Sarah Palin will have another decision to make and so will Fox, because if she participates she’ll be suspended, along with Gingrich and Santorum, but if she doesn’t it doesn’t mean she isn’t still considering a run. What will Ailes do then and how long will he let Palin vamp?

This was discussed today on “Morning Joe,” with Mark Halperin (about 4:20 in the video at that link) the only one remotely understanding Palin, saying correctly that “she makes decisions based on her own perspective and not by traditional method.” Beyond that it’s a matter of ego and whether Palin can resist the convenience of the Fox News channel klieg lights.

Love him or hate his network, Mr. Ailes is a smart Republican strategist, which was proven long ago. No one has done more good for the Right or given Republicans more power than Fox News channel.

While it’s certainly understandable that Palin was “fuming” she was taking heat over her crosshairs graphic, her inability to listen to reason, while letting her ego be her guide, reveals one aspect of her political insecurity that would also make her dangerous if she ever got the power of the presidency.

After Palin’s blood-libel video fiasco, however, even if she can win the Republican nomination, which remains the case, her chance at securing the presidency has dropped significantly since Tucson.

However, some Republicans remain worried that the primary process could catapult Palin to the nomination.

Former Sen. Judd Gregg pens an extraordinary op-ed in The Hill yesterday making this case:

Because the nominating process has become so dominated by primary elections, with the vast majority of the delegates chosen by direct vote, it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.

Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.

Underlying Gregg’s concern is that Republicans simply have no one in the field who can beat Barack Obama.

Conventional wisdom in establishment Republican circles is becoming that only Tim Pawlenty has a chance of winning. I think this is laughable. If anything he’d be the Michael Dukakis of the Right and lead Republicans to a devastating defeat. Actually, the only candidate who has that chance isn’t running and his name is Chris Christie.

Even with progressives disappointed with Obama’s first-term, the lesser evil option when compared to the Right remains why most Democrats inevitably come home at election time, which would expand exponentially if Sarah Palin was the nominee. As the Right targets women, and is gnashing to get at Social Security, with Republicans likely to dominate both chambers of Congress after 2012, Pres. Obama’s “lesser evil” mantle may mean more to people than disgruntled people on the Left will ever admit.

Enter Sarah Palin’s nomination for president.

Depressingly, no woman in the history of our republic has ever made it to the top of the ticket.

So, since Republicans are likely to lose to Obama anyway, wouldn’t placing the first woman on the presidential ballot, even if it’s Sarah Palin, be a signal worth sending?

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Anne-Marie Slaughter Slams Obama for ‘Fiddling’ on Libya

By on 14 March 2011

**UPDATED**

When Democrats join with neoconservatives like Bill Kristol on Libya, as well as Michael Barone who accused Obama of voting “present” on Libya, all I can see is the ghost of Iraq preemption dancing in my head.

Ms. Slaughter didn’t learn squat from her support for the Iraq war and its devastating results. Her op-ed in the New York Times today is remarkable, not only for the chasm in her much respected thinking of not gaming what can happen once we get embroiled in a country’s civil war, but for calling out Pres. Obama for “temporizing” on Libya.

No doubt Obama will want to squash her truth to power militaristic opinion like he did PJ Crowley on Manning, but Ms. Slaughter is now well out of his reach.

PRESIDENT Obama says the noose is tightening around Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In fact, it is tightening around the Libyan rebels, as Colonel Qaddafi makes the most of the world’s dithering and steadily retakes rebel-held towns. The United States and Europe are temporizing on a no-flight zone while the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Gulf Cooperation Council and now the Arab League have all called on the United Nations Security Council to authorize one. Opponents of a no-flight zone have put forth five main arguments, none of which, on close examination, hold up.

IT’S NOT IN OUR INTEREST Gen. Wesley K. Clark argues that “Libya doesn’t sell much oil to the United States” and that while Americans “want to support democratic movements in the region,” we are already doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Framing this issue in terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about our professions of support for democracy and human rights. Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the Muslim world — a new beginning of accountable governments that can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist groups and violent extremism. It’s hard to imagine something more in our strategic interest.

Slaughter’s claim that it’s “time to act” would put the United States intervening in a country where a civil war is raging, when it’s been obvious for days that Gadhafi is likely to prevail.

But her most astounding claim is on labeling “Arab democrats.”

..Assuming that a no-flight zone can be imposed by an international coalition that includes Arab states, we have an opportunity to establish a new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats.

This assumes much more than is currently evident, especially when you look at Egyptian men and their reaction to women marching for their own freedom. There is also no evidence that any of the countries enjoying the Arab spring will end up secular, which is a prime tenet of “democrats.”

If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.

This is where militaristic interventionist Democrats always end up. When other countries refuse to lead the U.S. should always step in. This is the same thinking that made Democrats in the Senate jump on the band wagon for Iraq that led to more ill will inside the Arab world than we could ever predict, but also led to a economic quagmire from which we still cannot extricate ourselves.

If the U.S. engages to help the opposition Libyan National Council it should be as partners with the world and the Security Council, but absolutely under no circumstance with America alone in the lead.

Steve Clemons rebuts Anne-Marie Slaughter today as well.

After all we’ve learned, 20th century Scoop Jackson Democrats still want to write checks for war supporting interventionist policies the U.S. economy can no longer afford to cash.

As Sect. Clinton’s former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Ms. Slaughter knows very well what it takes to impose a no-fly zone. So her “fiddling” slam is extraordinary given her respected stature in Democratic foreign policy circles.

Of course, former Pres. Clinton also supports a no-fly zone, as does John Kerry and others on the Democratic side.

Pres. Obama doesn’t have much company on his side, which should make everyone nervous on what may unfold.

UPDATE: Sen. Dick Lugar become the first to say any no-fly zone should be accompanied by Arab nations footing the bill. Amen.

[...] Given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame, the strains on our military, and other factors, it is doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. If the Obama Administration is contemplating this step, however, it should begin by seeking a declaration of war against Libya that would allow for a full Congressional debate on the issue. In addition, it should ask Arab League governments and other governments advocating for a no-fly zone to pledge resources necessary to pay for such an operation.

This is not unprecedented. More than $50 billion in foreign contributions were received to offset U.S. costs in association with the first Gulf War in 1991. Much of this came from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. …

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

OBAMA CENSORS STATE – PJ CROWLEY OUT

By on 13 March 2011

P.J. Crowley, spokesperson for the State Dept., has been shit-canned by the White House after honestly stating that PFC Bradley Manning’s treatment “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

Oh ri-ight, Crowley resigned. Got it?

From CNN:

P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.

Crowley will step down as early as Sunday afternoon, the officials said, because White House officials are furious about his suggestion that the Obama administration is mistreating Manning…

[...] But Crowley has told friends that he is deeply concerned that mistreatment of Manning could undermine the legitimate prosecution of the young private. Crowley has also made clear he has the Obama administration’s best interests at heart because he thinks any mistreatment of Manning could be damaging around the world to President Obama, who has tried to end the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners.

This is Pres. Obama’s decision, but the White House’s lack of trust in Mr. Crowley was telegraphed when Obama’s NSC spokesperson, Mike Hammer, was sent over to State.

Obama’s claims that the Pentagon has “assured” him that Manning is being treated under basic standards is laughable and insulting to our intelligence.

The move to silence Crowley is being done to deflect from the torturous treatment Manley has reportedly been under.

Manning’s lawyer also says the young private recently had to sleep in the nude because defense officials thought there was a suicide threat and decided to take away his boxer shorts.

PJ Crowley served as National Security Council spokesman for Pres. Bill Clinton.

Matt Stoller said it perfectly via Twitter: The WH thinks governing means a mix of PR and enforcing petty corrupt social norms. That’s it. That’s really it.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Atta Prez

By on 13 March 2011

Pres. Obama may have been delivering great one-liners at the Gridiron dinner last night. But earlier in the day he did something for women, for us all.

Extending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is important, with Mr. Obama’s statement in his radio address yesterday once again urging Congress to make women able to get redress if they’re paid less than men. Economic sex discrimination in the U.S. is intolerable.

We need to be the leading light in women’s economic freedoms not lag behind 21st century equality standards, because today women’s incomes matter a great deal to families.

Nearly 4 in 10 mothers (39.3 percent) are primary breadwinners, bringing home the majority of the family’s earnings, and nearly two-thirds (62.8 percent) are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of the family’s earnings. What’s more, women are now much more likely to head families on their own. – The Shriver Report

Congress should be much more aware of these realities.

Sect. Clinton is putting this into U.S. diplomacy, making the case to men in patriarchal cultures like Pakistan and beyond that women have real economic value to their family. It can end cultural abuse and change countries when women are valued fully.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Washington, DC

March is Women’s History Month, a time not only to celebrate the progress that women have made, but also the women throughout our history who have made that progress possible.

One inspiring American who comes to mind is Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1961, the former First Lady was unhappy about the lack of women in government, so she marched up to President Kennedy and handed him a three-page list of women who were qualified for top posts in his administration. This led the President to select Mrs. Roosevelt as the head of a new commission to look at the status of women in America, and the unfairness they routinely faced in their lives.

Though she passed away before the commission could finish its work, the report they released spurred action across the country. It helped galvanize a movement led by women that would help make our society a more equal place.

It’s been almost fifty years since the Roosevelt commission published its findings – and there have been few similar efforts by the government in the decades that followed. That’s why, last week, here at the White House, we released a new comprehensive report on the status of women in the spirit on the one that was released half a century ago.

There was a lot of positive news about the strides we’ve made, even in recent years. For example, women have caught up with men in seeking higher education. In fact, women today are more likely than men to attend and graduate from college.

Yet, there are also reminders of how much work remains to be done. Women are still more likely to live in poverty in this country. In education, there are areas like math and engineering where women are vastly outnumbered by their male counterparts. This is especially troubling, for we know that to compete with nations around the world, these are the fields in which we need to harness the talents of all our people. That’s how we’ll win the future.

And, today, women still earn on average only about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. That’s a huge discrepancy. And at a time when folks across this country are struggling to make ends meet – and many families are just trying to get by on one paycheck after a job loss – it’s a reminder that achieving equal pay for equal work isn’t just a women’s issue. It’s a family issue.

In one of my first acts as President, I signed a law so that women who’ve been discriminated against in their salaries could have their day in court to make it right. But there are steps we should take to prevent that from happening in the first place. That’s why I was so disappointed when an important bill to give women more power to stop pay disparities – the Paycheck Fairness Act – was blocked by just two votes in the Senate. And that’s why I’m going to keep up the fight to pass the reforms in that bill.

Achieving equality and opportunity for women isn’t just important to me as President. It’s something I care about deeply as the father of two daughters who wants to see his girls grow up in a world where there are no limits to what they can achieve.

As I’ve traveled across the country, visiting schools and meeting young people, I’ve seen so many girls passionate about science and other subjects that were traditionally not as open to them. We even held a science fair at the White House, where I met a young woman named Amy Chyao. She was only 16 years old, but she was actually working on a treatment for cancer. She never thought, “Science isn’t for me.” She never thought, “Girls can’t do that.” She was just interested in solving a problem. And because someone was interested in giving her a chance, she has the potential to improve lives.

That tells me how far we’ve come. But it also tells me we have to work even harder to close the gaps that still exist, and to uphold that simple American ideal: we are all equal and deserving of the chance to pursue our own version of happiness. That’s what Eleanor Roosevelt was striving toward half a century ago. That’s why this report matters today. And that’s why, on behalf of all our daughters and our sons, we’ve got to keep making progress in the years ahead.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Sunday Politics and Japan’s Nuclear Catastrophe

By on 13 March 2011

[...] Tokyo Electric Power Co., owner of the two heavily damaged complexes, took the unprecedented step of pumping seawater mixed with boric acid into the core of another reactor, Fukushima Daiichi’s unit 1 reactor, to tame ultra-high temperatures from fuel rods that had been partially exposed. In keeping with the natural as well as mechanical challenges of the week, the company had to delay the plan briefly after another, more mild, earthquake rocked the area and led to another tsunami warning. The battle at that reactor was just one of several being waged in the worst nuclear power crisis in a quarter-century. – Japanese nuclear plants’ operator scrambles to avert meltdowns

There can be no doubt that the “partial meltdown” of at least two of Japan’s nuclear plants will be big news on the Sunday shows. The Guardian talked to Greenpeace, driving home that nuclear power doesn’t come cheap and will never be safe.

Those opposed to nuclear power will not let the incident be forgotten, as Jan Beranek, head of Greenpeace’s international nuclear campaign, made clear. “How many more warnings do we need before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis,” he said.

Chuck Todd will step in on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which means it will be a lot more interesting. Gov. Mitch Daniels is the big guest, as is Sen. Chuck Schumer. I’m hoping he’ll repeat his thinking that it’s time for a mil-billionaire surtax, which would be a start down the shared sacrifice road.

ABC’s “This Week” and Christiane Amanpour will be live from Japan, with The Hill having the details on what subjects will be covered this morning.

CBS’s “Face the Nation’s” guests are Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu talking Japan, Libya and the Middle East.

CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley has Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin.

“Fox News Sunday” has Mitch McConnell, Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

Other than that, what are you hearing or reading today? Serve up links in the comments.

While we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, on our southern border an American professor was kidnapped by armed men in Mexico. She was unadvisedly visiting her family in Ciudad Juarez, which was a foolish move. Pres. Obama and our entire government isn’t taking our real challenges in Mexico seriously, while the Right thinks the problem is illegal immigration. We’ve got a bunch of fools in charge.

And let’s hope everyone remembered to set your clocks forward.

Screen capture from WashingtonPost.com.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Bill Maher: Qur’an ‘hate-filled holy book’

By on 12 March 2011

**UPDATED**

As an avowed atheist, Bill Maher is harsh on all religions, but he has a particular disdain for Islam. He’s taken out against Muslim men and their treatment of women before as well. But last night on “Real Time” Bill Maher exhibited Islamaphobia akin to Peter King.

Mediaite did a good synopsis so I don’t have to:

But that paled next to Maher’s criticism of the Qur’an, which he called a “hate-filled holy book…which is taken very literally” by radical Islamic terrorists. Ripping suicide bombers is one thing…maligning the holy book for the entirety of Islam is quite another. Ellison, of course, disagreed, saying Maher was “lumping together things that shouldn’t be lumped together,” and that terrorists “take things out of context to do what they want to do” – in fact, that “terrorist rhetoric” has little to do with religion at all.

Maher allowed that the “vast, vast giant majority of Muslims aren’t the problem,” but added that with terrorists, “it just takes one.” Maher also seemed unconvinced of Ellison’s Qur’an defense, even as Ellison cited a passage that claims that taking one life is akin to killing the whole world, and saving a life is like saving the entire world: “Am I getting the wrong translation? ‘Cause that’s what every Muslim always tells me.”

Nobody cuts to the bone on religion like Bill Maher. He gives no quarter to any devout believers. His film “Religulous” is a must see for anyone who cares about this subject.

It was clear on his show last night that Maher believes Islam is a greater threat to the U.S. than any other religion. Peter King will find that comforting.

UPDATE: MJ Rosenberg blasts Bill Maher saying “The man is raw hate.”

Read full story · Comments { 28 }