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 | June, 2011

Schumer Unveils Long Term Jobs Creation Bill

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Good news, I think. Senator Schumer has unveiled a jobs bill and Reid is promising to hold hearings and press to get it in any debt deal. Schumer includes many progressive ideas. Its high time the Senate pushed this:

…as Republicans have focused on extracting deep cuts out of negotiations to raise the $14 trillion debt ceiling, Schumer said, they’ve taken their eye off job creation.

“The American people realize that we not only have $14 trillion in debt, we also have 14 million hard-working Americans looking for jobs, and we have to do something about both,” he said. “This means we no longer have the political winds in our face as we seek to do something to create jobs.”

Democrats have been kicking around jobs legislation for months, but Schumer outlined the top priorities his party would focus on as part of its “Jobs First Agenda.”

In addition to a highway bill and clean-energy program, it would include a National Infrastructure Bank to help leverage private-sector investments for national or regional projects; immigration reform for highly skilled workers to spur innovation and new technology to create jobs; and a bill to restrict currency manipulation by China and other countries.

Schumer said some of these proposals should be included in debt talks now under way between the White House and congressional Republicans. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants his committee chairmen to hold hearings on jobs legislation and present ideas to leadership by Aug. 1 so the party can set its long-term jobs plan

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Stephen & his ‘Colbert Super PAC’


Oh, how the gods must enjoy Stephen Colbert, I sure know I do.

From The Hill:

“It has been said that freedom isn’t free. Today, we have placed a sizable down payment,” he noted.

Stephen Colbert at the FEC in Washington DCThe six FEC commissioners issued an unanimous advisory opinion to Colbert at their monthly meeting Thursday, stating that he could form the “Colbert Super PAC” with a media exemption. The exemption allows news outlets to report on campaigns without having their work considered a contribution, which would then have to be filed on a candidate’s disclosure forms.

The commissioners did rule in a 5-1 vote that Viacom would have to disclose payments if Colbert were to place advertisements on any media that was not “The Colbert Report.”

Priceless. Literally.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Bill Clinton: ‘Jon Huntsman Quite an Impressive Man’

Clinton’s assessment of Jon Huntsman is why Republicans won’t choose him. But if Huntsman and Bachmann could head the Republican ticket that would really be something for Obama reelect to go up against. Republicans simply aren’t that smart.

Former Pres. Bill Clinton weighed in on a number of issues during a break of CGI, which is in Chicago focusing on jobs:

For one thing, Clinton believes the economy will be better by Election Day than it is now, though unemployment still will be relatively high and the improvement in the economy won’t be as dramatic as the emergence from a shallower recession during his first four years as president.

“The circumstances are different,” Clinton said. “When President Obama took office, we were in the midst of avoiding having a financial collapse turn into a depression. So, the unemployment rate was higher and people were scared to death about what was going to happen. The so-called stimulus bill actually outperformed expectations, not underperformed, but it wasn’t big enough to lift this whole economy out of the hole it was in. The auto restructuring is working. And I think he’ll be able to point to that.”

He also believes whichever Republican gets nominated to face Obama will get boxed in by ideology.

“Since they, apparently, ideologically, will not permit their candidates to do some of the things that would be most effective in creating jobs and in balancing budget, I just don’t think they’ll be able to get away with what they got away with in the election in 2010,” Clinton said. “You won’t just be able to say, ‘Vote for me, I’m the non-Obama.’ I think he’s going to be able to point to a lot of very specific things that are better. I think that he’s going to be able to convince people that it takes a little longer after that kind of collapse to recover. It took Japan a decade to recover. … We’re coming back quicker than that.”

But Clinton’s idea of agreeing on a framework now, but then pushing the practical application of a debt solution down the road, sounds positively crazy to me. He’s been out of the game of partisan politics a long time and a lot has changed since he left, even if when he was in office things were bad. It was still pre-Tea Party. Offering a fantasy economic utopian path to cut all sides some slack has no chance in hell in today’s Washington, D.C.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Americans Blame Bush & Wall Street for Economy

Pres. Obama has a lot more power and room to push Republicans than he’s using.

But Obama isn’t seen as most responsible for the bad economy, with just eight percent of Americans saying his administration is most to blame. Of those surveyed, 26 percent still say the Bush administration is most to blame for the economy, down slightly from 28 percent in March 2010. Nearly the same percentage of those surveyed – 25 percent – say that Wall Street is most to blame, while 11 percent point to Congress. – Poll: 4 in 10 see ‘permanent decline’

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Republicans have Obama’s Economic Number

“I thought he was a dick yesterday,” Halperin, who also is a senior political analyst for MSNBC, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference.Mark Halperin apologizes for Obama gaffe


If a Democratic president does not have as a foundation for his economic platform that taxes and revenue increases in a recession are fundamental to getting out of it, much more so than spending cuts, with Republicans knowing that president is more on their side of the economic scale than the historic underpinnings of his own party, that Democratic president, aka Barack Obama, is done for from the start. Obama telegraphed this long ago.

Ezra Klein wrote yesterday: “Neither side is going to give in the face of purely rhetorical salvos.”

Klein gets it so wrong it’s hard to imagine anyone being this off base on the politics of it. Republicans on spending cuts is not a “purely rhetorical salvo,” but unfortunately, Pres. Obama on taxes and revenue increases is and the Republicans know it.

This is the entire problem, the Republicans have economic game, but Pres. Obama does not, because everyone knows he will give in at the end, because he instructed V.P. Joe Biden to serve up spending cuts as an act of good faith from the start and before getting equal revenue increases in exchange.

What’s been wrong from the start is that Pres. Obama hasn’t made the case for taxes as a good, before offering up cuts so that Democrats are giving more than they’re getting from Republicans as a political baseline. What’s been wrong from the start is that Pres. Obama gave in on economic message a long time ago, starting with a puny stimulus, but also by ceding territory to Republicans on the entire argument on economics.

Greg Sargent wrote to me via Twitter, then in a post: “He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich.”

This puts the very best possible spin on Obama’s news conference yesterday. This supposed “major public fight” also comes way too late and is more show boating than anything else. The “major public fight” Sargent talks about also didn’t come on a righteous case for taxes as a public imperative that he backs, as I tweeted back to Sargent yesterday, but as a silly monogram fight over corporate jets, which truly is a pathetic rhetorical salvo, because it doesn’t come close to actually making the economic argument needed from Democrats.

Piggy-backing on Sargent’s “major public fight” case, today on “Morning Joe,” Mark Halperin said that Pres. Obama pleased Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but not John Boehner, when the only deal that can happen will instead please Boehner and not Pelosi. It backs up Sargent, but also illustrates everything that’s wrong with political analysis today, though this is what’s believed.

Again, the problem isn’t pleasing Pelosi over Boehner, it’s that Pres. Obama’s rhetoric on private jets isn’t moored in the righteous policy belief required that would put him equal to Boehner and the Republicans. There’s simply no way for an agnostic Democrat who doesn’t believe in taxes and revenue over spending cuts to win against Republicans who have religion on no tax increases.

Meanwhile, as Dylan Ratigan noted the other day, Rep. Eric Cantor, who walked out of negotiations has not divested in a fund that has been found shorting Treasurys.

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.

“If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, investors would start fleeing U.S. Treasuries,” said Matt Koppenheffer, who writes for the investment website the Motley Fool. “Yields would rise, prices would fall, and the Proshares ETF should do very well. It would spike.”

The fund hasn’t significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty. (One tactic some speculators are using is to “trade the debt ceiling debate” — that is, to place short-term bets on prices as they fluctuate with the news out of Washington.)

The true problem in this debate is that you can wrap the rich around Republicans all you want, but the Democratic message since Obama’s been in office has been bipartisan deals to big business, big banks, big insurance and big Pharma, as well as tax cuts, with the puny push lately from the White House being the corporate jet card. So, if Republicans give in on jets and oil subsidies that’s it?

Obama’s defensiveness on raising taxes and revenue puts Republicans exactly where they want to be with their base, which is aggressively supporting spending cuts, with the Biden-led gang all in on that part, while reduced to begging for tax increases and revenue. All because Pres. Obama waited 2 and a half years to make the Democratic case, which he made poorly yesterday.

Democratic economic philosophy is not simply about corporate jets and oil subsidies. It’s about the belief that a safety net for the middle class is the foundational tenet of the party, which includes what even Ronald Reagan did when push came to shove and did so unapologetically, even if he didn’t like it, and that was raise taxes 11 times back in the ’80s. As a former F.D.R. Democrat, Reagan had learned from the best.

Taxes and stimulus in a recession are what gets you out of it. Corporate jets and oil subsidies are indeed part of the picture, especially symbolically on priorities. But the driving force must be the belief that taxes and revenue fund government’s purpose, including to aid the poor, the middle class and the overall health of an ailing economy, as well as keep this country strong through infrastructure, moon projects, great energy expeditions, etc., which is the foundation for the American dream.

Even Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann accepts what the federal government offers to her family and her state, because tax revenue is important to small businesses and the health of a functioning state government.

It’s only been in the Obama era that the Democratic Party leader became ashamed of making the case for raising taxes and revenue as a necessary element of funding government, instead of a last ditch case to pick some public fight after Democrats have already handed over spending cuts unequal to what they’ve demanded on revenue.

Pres. Obama has never been interested in making the Democratic economic case, while Republicans won’t stop making theirs. That’s why from the start of this debate there has been a disproportionate amount of spending cuts on the table, compared to tax revenue.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Dems Push Against Voter I.D. Laws

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

In New Hampshire Governor Lynch has just vetoed voter ID there! Every Democratic governor has nixed such legislation. Read Lynch’s statement here, it is excellent highlighting the fact that “fraud” is almost non-existant and thus no need to disenfranchise thousands.

Democrats on the Hill are pushing the DOJ to crackdown on voter suppression tactics:

The letter — written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and signed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Mark Begich (AK), Ben Cardin (MD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Patty Murray (WA), Ron Wyden (OR), Tom Harkin (IA), Herb Kohl (WI) and Tom Udall (NM) — comes as Wisconsin, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kansas and Tennessee have already passed voter ID measures.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) questioned DOJ’s Thomas Perez about the Department’s review of voter ID laws at a hearing earlier this month. Perez said that the Justice Department was reviewing all of the laws that had been passed under Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Read their letter to Attorney General Holder here.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Appeals Court Upholds ACA

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration won the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.

Scotusblog has analysis:

The key feature of Congress’s broad new health care law — a mandate that virtually every one obtain health insurance by the year 2014 — on Wednesday survived its first constitutional challenge in a federal appeals court, but it did so with little room to spare. Three judges on the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati took three different positions, but the one that counted the most rejected only the broadest challenge, and suggested that narrower ones might have some success as the law is actually put into effect.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Democrats Consider the Constitution Card

This is brilliant and worth the effort. From Ryan Grimm and Samuel Haas:

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Salvation could lie in the 14th Amendment:

Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” reads the 14th Amendment.

“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’”

I’d love to see the Democrats play the U.S. Constitution card, then watch their Tea Party adversaries twist in the hot summer wind.

However, I seriously doubt the markets would react favorably to a constitutional challenge, with keeping the Wall Street robbers calm what everyone is so freaked about in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Bachmann Carves New Path on Feminism for Conservative Women

Bachmann told me in an interview Tuesday that she wouldn’t call herself a feminist—instead, she simply described herself as “pro-woman and pro-man.” When I pressed her on the matter, the Minnesota congresswoman said she sees herself as an “empowered American.”Kirsten Powers

I’ve been waiting for this particular moment for a long time. The Hillary effect continues to produce political opportunities for women to break out, regardless of whether Michele Bachmann can rival Clinton’s 18 million cracks, though she’s on a course to be the first Republican female to win the caucus state of Iowa, much to T-Paw’s chagrin.

Political moments like this don’t come along often. This has the potential of being a seminal moment for the conservative movement and their outreach to women, though it remains to be seen whether the macho misogynists who run the Republican Party will see this for the historic opportunity it is.

Kirsten Powers gets the story, for which she deserves credit, with her Fox News channel access proving the perfect channel for Bachmann to broadcast the message. That it happens to be the most important breakthrough for the Right where women are concerned is undeniable, though we’ll have to wait to see if they understand what Michele Bachmann has done. I doubt she even knows the importance of what she said, because it takes a feminist to see it.

I’ve written about this for quite some time, wondering what woman on the Right would go beyond contorted conservative feminist-esque rhetoric by offering a positive alternative vision for Republican femmes that left their lame and divisive selective “pro life” mantra behind.

Then along comes a so-called gafferiffic “flake” named Michele Bachmann, the first politically competent conservative female to run for the presidency, offering a free at last path. That she did so in an off the cuff comment to a Democratic feminist is precious.

After watching Palin’s tortured conservative feminist cry when she spoke at the Susan B. Anthony event last year, I wondered when, if ever, conservative females would finally give up the ghost on feminism, a model that can never fit or worked for them, which history has proven. Asking continually why conservatives don’t disavow feminism, with the only answer from the Right sniping derision, which came off as petulant defensiveness.

Since Phyllis Schlafly ruined the Right’s coolness, the Republican Party has been struggling to break out of their past restraints and go beyond their abortion rights opponent stance and selective “pro life” mantra. That Bachmann’s comment comes when modern women are now primarily focused on economic issues makes the timing perfect.

Mrs. Bachmann could potentially change the conservative playing field, going well beyond Schlafly, as well as Sarah Palin’s unimaginative verbal femme contortions, while mining a seminal Republican talking point that is actually modern. Bachman’s premise is that women no longer need a separate activist wing to get what’s due them. Nothing fits the Supreme Court Wal-Mart decision era more perfectly than Bachmann’s “empowered American” mantra, coming in an age of austerity and amidst the Obama era’s diminished capacity for fighting for Democratic Party principles.

Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has also added to her authenticity while giving Republican female conservatives a genuine path to rhetorical relevancy.

The opening for them came in the 2010 midterms, with women breaking evenly for Republicans and Democrats.

For four decades, the Republican struggle among female voters has been tortured, with the last conservative star Sarah Palin adding to the pretzel logic by declaring an “emerging conservative feminist identity,” a ludicrous pronouncement, because there can be no such thing as “conservative feminism.”

You simply cannot be a feminist if you do not support women’s full freedoms, which the Right clearly does not. Their war against women, which is being waged through their Planned Parenthood assault, but also demeaning women’s personhood through state government ultrasound pregnancy tests, “heartbeat” bills and other invasive laws directed only at pregnant women, proves it conclusively, even as these onerous legislative laws make a mockery of “small government conservatism,” which now only aims to control women’s lives on the wings of extreme ideology.

Into this Michele Bachmann steps, not only declaring the Right’s separate status on the political playing field by rejecting the feminist label outright, but she instead simply offers another label saying she’s an “empowered American.”

Shorter Bachmann: Modern conservative women don’t need your stickin’ feminism. This is the 21st century and I’m an “empowered American.” It’s brilliant, for her purposes and for the agenda of the Republican Party.

It ends the Right’s feminist problem by refusing to play in that ballpark, which has always been the road to set Republicans free.

Most importantly for consevatives, it disavows a concept that’s weakened Republicans and made them seem anti-women, which they are, though with this rebranding they jump beyond the ’70s to a time when new generations have no loyalty to feminism or the times that forged the laws that aid women across the board, no matter a woman’s politics.

Feminism did the work, now Bachmann is trying to lead conservative women beyond the movement that hamstrung Republicans with women for 40 years, while also allowing Bachmann to run for president in a party that doesn’t respect women’s freedoms. Feminism made Bachmann’s “empowered American” possible, because of gains made through this movement. Hey, but who cares, right? Certainly anything that attempts to wash away feminism is good for the Republican Right.

Bachmann affirms equality unequivocally, with no separate status of “feminist” required for her. She is daring Republicans and the conservative Right to break with the divisive and retro “feminazi” Rush ranting and bashing once and for all.

With “empowered American,” Michele Bachmann looks modern, dare I say it, even post-feminism, a term Republicans have tried to use but no one bought, because they couldn’t sell it. But as women now turn to economics as their primary concern the moment is ripe.

This is potentially a phenomenal political moment for Republicans.

However, Republicans and conservatives like Michele Bachmann still can’t effectively answer the most important question of all: Is freedom just for men?

But they don’t care, because for conservatives, invoking God is the answer for everything else.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Dueling Ads

I’m not as squeamish as some are about the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA arming for 2012.

Karl Rove’s Crossroads ad, seen first below, which I’ve seen on Fox News channel several times, has been met by progressive Super PAC Priorities USA’s ad, seen second.

Which one works for you?

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Pres. Obama’s News Conference

**UPDATED**

Tweeting/retweeting Pres. Obama’s news conference, with select tweets below:

Taylor Marsh: “It weighs on you,” circumstances hitting Americans. Then ode to Iowa, “put aside the expedience of short-term politics” to get it done. End

Taylor Marsh: Obama: “I’ve been doing bin Laden, the Greek crisis.” Clearly ticked off about charges he’s not leading. #thinskin (This was a hit on Congress being on break.)

Taylor Marsh: Obama: I met with the leaders & at some point they’ve got to do their jobs. “They need to do their jobs. That’s why they’re called leaders.”

Matt Stoller: “Balanced approach” versus “Step up and get this done” #ClicheFight

Peter Daou: Guess which topic never comes up in these press conferences: the one that directly imperils our existence #climate #warming

Taylor Marsh: @MPOTheHill Nice try, but no, it’s not about interrupting econ message. It’s about 2012 message to voters he’s going to need in swing states (Note: Talking about Obama not being willing to make news on gay marriage today.)

Andrea Mitchell: No one’s asked Obama whether Kabul attack signals how hard it is to stop Taliban from pulling off inside jobs. Affect on drawdown?

Taylor Marsh: MSNBC crawler under Obama: “61% disapprove of how Pres Obama has handled federal budget deficit (from McClatchy-Marist)” He’s lost pr war.

Taylor Marsh: This is NOT helpful to progressives & Democrats, with Obama once again lost in word fogs with absolutely no econ message you can grasp.

Jonah Goldberg: Breaking: Mel Tormé called from heaven. Worried Obama trying to steal “velvet fog” nickname during this press conference.

Taylor Marsh: Obama calls Libya Was Powers Act “fuss” over politics, but it’s obvious his ego is in a bunch over being challenged. Thin skin prevails.

David Corn: BREAKING: GOP Accuses Obama of Waging Class War on Corp. Jet Owners. #waitforit #corpjetownersaresmallbusinesses

Taylor Marsh: @chucktodd asks on Libya, debt limit & gays. “Noise about process” on Libya leads into hyperbolic nonsense about Gadhafi’s killing history

Taylor Marsh: Obama is making revenue argument ridiculous by saying corp. jets, instead of making case for taxes so gov. can function for the people.

Taylor Marsh: Obama still doesn’t get it. Dems giving in on entitlements w/o GOP giving on taxes gives them the edge. Blinking first never ever works.

TM: Get rid of tax breaks for millionaires & billionaires, corporate jet owners, oil & gas, Obama’s pitch.

Chuck Todd: Interesting opening statement from POTUS focusing on Congress. Phrase “pending before Congress right now” uttered multiple Xs already

TM: “Right now” begins Obama’s pointing the finger at Congress.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Bachmann Makes Palin Seem Like Old News Now

PELLA, Iowa — Sarah Palin stared a bit uncomfortably at a movie screen Tuesday night watching a montage of Matt Damon, David Letterman, Madonna, Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Louis C.K. and other celebrities malign her, then asked The Hollywood Reporter: “What would make someone be so full of hate?” – The Hollywood Reporter

Nothing will keep the press from following Sarah Palin around like lap dogs.

“I’m very grateful that someone would bother to go to these efforts to make a documentary about the record of my team in Alaska that worked so hard for energy security and ethics reform and privatizing businesses that should never be in government’s hands,” Palin said. “This film really is a great illustration of what it is that you can accomplish as a team, a bipartisan approach, just common-sense solutions to some tough issues. We tackled it, we succeeded, and someone went to the trouble of documenting what it was that we accomplished. I appreciate that, so that brings me to Iowa.” – Real Clear Politics

I’m more amused than anything with the hoopla following the infomercial masquerading as a film that reinvents Sarah Palin through her Alaskan political career, which she chose to quit for greener pastures via her never ending publicity tour. Her political relevancy at this point is at the lowest ebb we’ve seen since she blasted on to the scene as McCain’s vice presidential nominee. The credibility she built up before the 2010 midterms a distant memory.

Sarah Palin faces an uncomfortable reality, even as she teases about 2012 saying, “We’re still thinking about that.” She’s allowed Michele Bachmann to take over where she left off, with Bachmann appearing infinitely more articulate, professional and determined to be a political force inside the Republican Party, which is becoming a reality as she moves up into the cat bird seat in the GOP primary contest, though there’s a long way to go and fading is always a possibility.

Why would Tea Party activists and other conservatives looking for an alternative to Romney and the establishment pols choose Palin over Bachmann at this point? There’s no logical reason, though partisan politics is driven by emotion, which is the only thing that could make the difference.

Still, Bachmann has the same political platform as Palin only she’s stayed in the arena. Bachmann isn’t a media coward, no matter how she trips over her own tongue, something both women have in common, unfortunately. Palin’s scared of unfriendly media, unlike Bachmann, who shows the maturity needed for national politics, with Palin’s policy prowess now reduced to Twitter and Facebook belches. Additionally, with Bachmann at 65% or so approval in Iowa, as a home state girl, why would notoriously conservative Iowans switch to Palin?

Shrouded in the aura of 2008 and the disaster gaffes everyone can recite by heart, Palin looks far less interesting, though her fans continue to flock around her. This is the real dilemma she faces in the charade she’s concocting surrounding whether she’ll run for president. How can she stiff her fans? What will happen to her career if she doesn’t run, which seems the most likely choice, because the obstacles loom large. Fox talking head is all she’s got.

Where would Sarah get the money to run? Bachmann has proven a formidable financing foe, with there no evidence Palin has the backers to pull off a presidential run at this point. She’ll need a political sugar daddy to manage it, which isn’t out of the question, especially with her adoring fans holding their breath for her pending announcement.

Sarah Palin simply looks like old news today, a wannabe political star who decided to choose celebrity, fan cultivation and media gamesmanship to become the most popular Fox News babe who amazingly isn’t blonde.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Mitch McConnell Won’t Budge, So We Await Obama’s Blink

Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good. – Sen. Bernie Sanders (Shared Sacrifice letter to Pres. Obama)

If only Pres. Obama could channel one-quarter of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ passion (see video above).

But he is having a news conference at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow from the East Room of the White House. Here’s why, in case you’ve been on the beach:

“So far, they’re saying that it’s essential,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday. “We think it’s a job-killing step that shouldn’t be taken, and Republicans are not interested in going in that direction.” – Mitch McConnell holds ground on taxes

Enough is enough, Sanders is correct. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama simply doesn’t have what it takes to make this case. He simply does not know how to rally the middle class by touching the hearts of the people to raise them up on their on behalf.

The last president who could do that was William Jefferson Clinton.

So, Pres. Obama is still likely to “yield once again.”

Dear Mr. President,

This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today – which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

Everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce the deficit – a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny.

Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.

Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good.

Respectfully,

Sen. Bernie Sanders;
and Co-signers

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Queer Talk: ‘Human Rights’ (Hillary), ‘States’ Rights’ (Obama)

Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose weekly column “Queer Talk” appears on Saturday.

Two events on Monday of this week added to the conversations about marriage equality. One was from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who talked about international LGBT rights as “human rights.” And one from White House press secretary Jay Carney – responding to questions about marriage between same-gender couples from The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Bill Press from The Bill Press Show – who talked about “states’ right”. It’s worth noting, as does Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner, that Meckler and Press are not among the “Five writers with LGBT outlets or known for their LGBT writing” who were at the briefing, but not called on by Carney.

The context for both are the unhappy sounds from Queerdom and allies regarding the Obama administration’s spins on LGBT rights, at this moment, particularly marriage equality. To be clear, Clinton’s speech was not a response to the New York vote or a direct challenge to Obama, in whose cabinet she serves. But the contrast between LGBT equality framed as “human rights” and “states’ rights” is still relevant.

On Monday, Clinton spoke at an event co-hosted by the Department of State, and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. The scheduled event was in celebration of LGBT Pride Month, and included a panel discussion lead by Under Sec. Maria Otero regarding the status of LGBT people around the world.

You can read the transcript of Clinton’s remarks here. Video here.

She began:

… this is an especially momentous and extraordinary time for us to meet for the State Department’s annual Pride celebration, the third event we’ve had here at State since I became Secretary, and the first following the historic vote in New York, which I think gives such visibility and credibility to everything that so many of you have done over so many years …

Later in the speech, she added this:

If you followed closely … the debate in New York, one of the key votes that was switched at the end was a Republican senator from the Buffalo area who became convinced that it was just not any longer fair for him to see one group of his constituents as different from another. Senators stood up and talked about nieces and nephews and grandchildren and others who are very dear to them, and they don’t want them being objectified or discriminated against. And from their own personal connections and relationships, they began to make the larger connection with somebody else’s niece or nephew or grandchild and what that family must feel like.

No, she doesn’t say, “I support marriage equality,” and yes, I wish she would. Of course, as long as she’s Sec. of State, it’s highly unlikely she will. We’ll see about later. But I think it’s worth noting who she singles out: “a Republican senator from Buffalo.” Obviously the focus should be at the state level, not DC. But I, at least, find it significant that there is no mention of the Obama administration’s position on marriage equality. The only way she could have done that, of course, would have been to follow the same strange story line coming out of the WH, which among other things, emphasizes the right of states to make such decisions.

As AmericaBlog’s Sudbay writes about the WH “sticking with the ‘it’s for the states to decide’ talking point”:

This is when we realize that the White House really is very insular. The people who work there must have no concept of how ridiculous their talking points on same-sex marriage sound in the real world … .

I’d just add, Insider and Access individuals and organizations who continue indefinite support of the administration which is using such “talking points” also appear “very insular.”

Clinton goes on to highlight some of the successful efforts toward LGBT human rights on the international scene, from Honduras to Slovakia, as well as steps taken in the UN, including by the Human Rights Council, two weeks ago, which passed “the first ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of LGBT people worldwide.” She notes, however, that “all this progress is worth celebrating, but we cannot forget how much work lies ahead. Because let’s just face the facts: LGBT people in many places continue to endure threats, harassment, violence … in public and private.”

As for that Carey “states’ rights” press briefing, an excerpt, via Metro Weekly:

Meckler asked, ‘[L]ast week the President spoke about gay marriage when he
was in New York and … talked about how this has been the province of the state … referring to what was happening in the debate in New York, he said that’s the power of democracy at work. Does that mean that he also respects the outcome of democracy at work in California where voters rejected the idea of gay marriage?’ …

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think as you saw in the decision we announced that we would no longer – this administration would no longer be participants defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we do not believe it’s constitutional, that it’s precisely because of his belief that this was a matter that needs to be decided by the states. So without commenting on a particular other state, I think he was making that clear with regard to the action in New York

Carney’s responses to follow-up questions from Meckler, and then from Press, didn’t get any better.

In addition to Clinton’s speech providing some comparison and context, Carey’s remarks also came as not only LGBTs and “progressives,” but mainstream media and conservatives, question Obama’s stance on marriage equality. From a column by Maureen Dowd in which she writes “Our president likes to be on both sides at once,” and an NY Times editorial, “Gay Marriage: Where’s Mr. Obama?,” to comments from former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in which he says, “I was wrong about same-sex marriage,” and the reports that, among other Republicans, Ken Melhman, former head of the RNC, “played a key role in the NY marriage victory” – it’s clear that a “states’ rights” framing isn’t working.

I’m not sure which is worse: If the WH doesn’t realize that, or if it does and continues with the spin anyway. Whatever, it’s certainly not an example of leading. Or even of very good politics.

(An earlier, “In the News” version of this piece has additional quotes from Secretary of State Clinton’s “The Human Rights of LGBT People and U.S. Foreign Policy” speech.)

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Tim Pawlenty’s Neoconservative Spring

It’s like the ghost of George W. Bush, but with smoother segues. …and so it begins:

Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.

[...] Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. [...]

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. [...]

There’s the obligatory chastising of Pres. Obama, because he’s mean to Israel:

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence.

Oh, and you’ll love the part on Syria. Mr. Pawlenty has a domino theory of sanctioning nations, with the U.S. providing Wilsonian intervention wherever needed.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.

Daniel Drezner weighs in saying it was a “a reasonably coherent speech.”

You can likely imagine what the part on Palestinians reads like, but here’s the bottom line: It’s all the Palestinians’ fault.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.

If you like your neoconservatism rebooted, T-Paw’s for you. A more accessible, well spoken George W. Bush, whose record at least shows a hint of competency.

John McCain’s got to love this guy.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Middle Class Expendable to Michele Bachmann (and Herman Cain)

Michele Bachmann has said she’s willing to abolish the minimum wage, following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps, except that he chickened out in the end, with Greg Sargent delving into that today. From her interview with Stephanopoulos today:

Stephanopoulos: Well let me move on to another one of your statements on the issue of jobs which is so central to this campaign. You said back in 2005 that taking away the minimum wage could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment. Where is the evidence for that?

Bachmann: You know I think what we need to do is, again George, focus on job creation. I’m a former federal tax litigation attorney. I worked for years in the federal tax court system and watched how devastating high taxes are on business and individuals and farmers. And I’m also a job creator. My husband and I started from scratch a successful small business. That’s really the focus that I’m hearing today in New Hampshire. People are very upset that the president has us at 9.1 percent unemployment. That is not acceptable. He promised us that we wouldn’t see unemployment go above 8 percent. We’ve lost millions of jobs, people are suffering, they are hurting and I feel their pain and I want to make sure that what we do going forward is actually to address this and turn the economy around and get it on the right track because that’s really what people care about – that’s what they’re talking to me about all across the country.

Here’s her exact quote from 2005:

“Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.”

Conceivably… potentially… virtually… Give it up.

Herman Cain agrees:

FANG: Do you think the current minimum wage is too high or even necessary?

CAIN: I don’t think the current minimum wage is necessary because most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage. Now you can’t say everybody’s paying higher than the minimum wage but a lot of companies [inaudible]

Policy is what matters and though we all love our gafferiffic politicians, their policy is where we all need to focus.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Governor of Afghanistan Central Bank Flees for his Life

**UPDATED**

A group of people using bombs and small arms attacked the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul Tuesday, and fighting was ongoing with Afghan security forces, Chief of Criminal Investigation Mohammed Zahir told CNN. – Bombers attack luxury hotel in Kabul (update)

From Foreign Policy:

Abdul Qadeer Fitrat, the governor of Afghanistan’s central bank, resigned his position and fled the country, saying that the government interfered in his corruption investigation into Kabul Bank. He said that he left Afghanistan after receiving reports from “credible sources” that his life was in danger due to the investigation. He is now in the United States, where he has residency.

The original report came from the BBC:

“My life was completely in danger and this was particularly true after I spoke to the parliament and exposed some people who are responsible for the crisis of Kabul Bank,” Mr Fitrat said on Monday.

The embezzlement at Kabul Bank, Afghanistan’s largest private bank, almost led to its collapse last year after it was discovered that hundreds of millions of dollars had gone missing. …

“During [the] last 10 months during Kabul Bank crisis, I continuously pressed for the creation of a special prosecution, for the creation of a special tribunal to investigate and prosecute those who were involved in Kabul Bank’s fraud,” he told the BBC. “I did not receive any information that there is a credible plan to prosecute, to investigate and prosecute these individuals. The high political authorities of the country was responsible [for blocking] these efforts,” he alleged.

He said he left the country after he received information that his life was in danger from “credible sources”.

Now, move along please, nothing to see here.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Herman Cain’s Inevitable Collapse in 3.. 2..

The fleeting romance with Herman Cain is about to end, as it should.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s New Hampshire state director, his only staffer in the state, as well as a Cain campaign regional director have both resigned. Matt Murphy is the former state director and Jim Zeiler is the former regional director. Both defections raise the question of whether or not the Cain campaign is facing some trouble. – Two top Herman Cain staffers resign

In the first debate, with many calling him the winner, which was ludicrous, Cain’s idea of the job of commander in chief got down to assembling people around him who knew what they were doing, then trusting their judgment.

If you’re seeing nightmares of Dick and Rummy dancing through your head you’re not alone. That he didn’t even understand right of return on Middle East policy should be frightening to everyone, as is his stance on the need for Muslims to take a loyalty oath.

Mr. Cain seems like a nice man, but that doesn’t mean he should be considered presidential material, especially with our foreign policy shifting dramatically as our economic reality demands. But it was fun while it lasted and he can enjoy the ride a little longer, but not without sacrificing some of his own personal wealth, which is his choice, though not a good investment.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Scrutiny on Bachmann Isn’t What Obama Faced

Politico has a piece today on Bachmann’s thin legislative record. Fair enough to cover, but let’s not pretend such things weren’t overlooked for the boys.

When George W. Bush ran for president, not only was his abysmal business record shrugged off, but the traditional press didn’t pay any attention at all regarding Bush’s very iffy National Guard record, not to mention the fact that his presidential candidacy was predicated on his father. When John Kerry was attacked by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” Fox News channel not only encouraged Sean Hannity to broadcast lies about Sen. Kerry’s hero war record, but traditional, new media and cable outlets let the Right get away with swiftboating him by allowing the false equivalency of Jerome Corsi to be taken seriously. Ronald Reagan likely had Alzheimer’s before his second term, but nobody blew the whistle on the Gipper, while letting him off the hook for Iran-Contra, because the bond the people had with him after the assassination attempt was real. Now, I realize these issues aren’t of the same variety, but scrutiny is scrutiny and when it’s not, it’s not.

The opener from the Politico piece:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is surging in the GOP presidential polls and barnstorming Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but as she sprints toward the front of the Republican pack, there’s a major hole in her political résumé: legislation.

Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law, and she’s never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann’s amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator.

Candidate Barack Obama had the thinnest of records out of Illinois, but that didn’t bother anyone when I was writing about Obama’s flyover of the first debate in Carson City, NV, or when he came to the health care forum in Las Vegas saying he’d have a plan in 3 months, totally whiffing the moment. Voting “present” in the Illinois state senate innumerable times didn’t bother the breathless cable yakkers either. Women found out just how committed Pres. Obama was to our freedoms in the Affordability Care Act, as well as his decision on abortion recently in his decision to sell out D.C. women.

But then again, considering the lousy Democratic leadership record Pres. Obama has had in his first term, making private insurance deals, big Pharma compacts, channeling Bush on war and plotting assassinations around the globe, not to mention endless parroting of the Republican economic message, perhaps Politico is correct. Records do matter.

Let’s just not pretend this isn’t a double standard if Michele Bachmann is judged less than a man who’s done absolutely nothing worthy of note before running for president.

Unless, that is, one anti-war speech convinced you that candidate Obama was a progressive fighter, which in that case your hopeless to begin with.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Pres. Obama’s Idea of Negotiating

The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy. [...] The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve. – Bush rates are kept safe in debt-limit talks

Pres. Obama plays golf with Speaker Boehner and Gov. John Kasich, so you can’t expect him to understand what his moral economic cowardice means to middle class Americans looking on at this spectacle.

I’m beyond appalled that Pres. Obama and the Democrats continue handing Republicans the economic argument, because they’re too scared to make the case Sen. Bernie Sanders has made innumerable times, the latest Monday on the Senate floor.

Shared sacrifice doesn’t exist in any meaningful way if you’re afraid to rescind the Bush tax cuts, while allowing Medicare tinkering and cuts, as Sen. McConnell is insisting in order to keep Sen. DeMint from jumping his leadership job.

The current rumblings leaking out of negotiations are indefensible from a Democratic, progressive or liberal perspective.

The immediate goal is to find upward of $2.4 trillion in 10-year savings and revenues to help offset what would be an almost equal increase in the federal debt ceiling to be voted prior to Aug. 2 — the deadline set by the Treasury Department. Thus far, the Biden talks have identified an estimated $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion in spending reductions — two-thirds of the final goal. The challenge is to either close the gap with some mix of savings and revenues or retreat to settling for a shorter-term debt increase equal to the lesser savings figure. – Revenue vs. cuts in debt debate

I certainly hope this turns out differently than it’s currently playing in my mind, because right now the willingness of Pres. Obama and the Democrats to offer so much on spending reductions without Republicans having any skin in this game is making me nauseous.

Remember, however, that what’s happening is because Pres. Obama wants it to be this way. What’s happening in the debt talks is coming down to decisions he approves of and is negotiating himself. You can’t blame this disaster on Republicans; well, you can, but then you’d be lying like the partisan hacks who are covering for Obama amidst this travesty he set up in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }