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

Hillary Clinton & McConnell Illustrate the Worst Side of Foreign Policy Politics

By on 24 June 2011

When Sec. Clinton was first chosen for her job at State some were skeptical she’d have Pres. Obama’s back when it was needed. There was never a doubt in my mind, however, that she would not only be a team player, but one of Pres. Obama’s strongest advocates. It’s who she is, because she knows what a president needs and expects from those inside his administration, especially when he gets himself in trouble.

The rhetorical tactic Clinton uses to make her case on Libya while in Jamaica during a question and answer period, which the State Dept. chose to highlight in a video clip that can’t be embedded, is unbefitting a person of her stature, as she suggests those in Congress questioning Obama on Libya check his or her loyalties.

So I know we live in a hyper-information-centric world right now, and March seems like it’s a decade ago, but by my calendar, it’s only months. And in those months, we have seen an international coalition come together unprecedented between not only NATO, but Arab nations, the Arab League, and the United Nations. This is something that I don’t think anyone could have predicted, but it is a very strong signal as to what the world expects to have happen, and I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I’m sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

This is the type of reprehensible rhetoric that Sen. Clinton abhorred when she was criticizing Pres. George W. Bush. But now that it’s a Democratic president, she hypocritically chooses the cowards way out by challenging critics in a way that she wouldn’t if Obama was a Republican.

It’s always been clear to me that Libya could come back to haunt Pres. Obama and those who helped him make this disastrous decision, which includes Sec. Hillary Clinton, along with Samantha Power and U.N. ambassador Dr. Susan Rice, among others. So, it’s circle the wagons time. People are obviously getting nervous, with TIME magazine showing the dangers as the Libya misadventure drags on.

Even if NATO can accomplish its objective or drives Gadhaffi out, it still doesn’t make Pres. Obama’s decision right or legal.

More from John Burns in the New York Times from earlier this week:

Originally envisaged as lasting a matter of weeks, the air campaign is now into its fourth month. It has seen NATO conduct nearly 12,000 air missions over Libya, about one-third of them involving strikes by bombs or missiles, some of them seemingly intended to kill the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The airstrikes have virtually obliterated Colonel Qaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya command compound in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and reduced the fighting capacity of the Libyan forces by about 50 percent, according to Pentagon estimates. But there has been no sign that the Qaddafi government is at risk of crumbling under the pressure, at least not soon.

Much of the pressure NATO is facing over the Libyan operation comes from the dissent within NATO itself, with some member nations saying the campaign has gone beyond the mandate given by a United Nations Security Council resolution in mid-March that approved NATO action to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to undertake other missions to protect the country’s civilian population from the Qaddafi forces.

As Clinton’s bookend and to illustrate the political gamesmanship going on from all quarters, let’s also look at Sen. Mitch McConnell’s remarks:

MCCONNELL: The only thing I can tell you at this point is that there are differences. I’m not sure that these kind of differences might not have been there in a more latent form when you had a Republican president. But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side. So I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration, but party loyalty tended to mute them. So yeah, I think there are clearly differences and I think a lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House, feel more free to express their reservations which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration.

Now you know why Congress and the Executive Branch don’t work like the founders intended, which is why this country is so profoundly screwed up. It’s all petty politics depending on if your side is being hit and is in power or not. Sec. Clinton and Sen. McConnell openly representing the worst of this example in their comments, proving the juvenile leadership being affllicted on foreign policy decisions, among others.

Sec. Clinton is obliged to make her case for Libya however she wants, but diplomatically it’s sheer amateurism to set your sights on critics who expect the Executive Branch to inform Congress when embroiling this country in a military misadventure that isn’t of strategic importance to the United States.

This is what cost her the nomination, as she deferred to George W. Bush, then tried to make up for her vote on Iraq by criticizing him.

Whose side are you on? Sec. Clinton’s got a lot of nerve asking this question to Americans who expect more transparency from the Executive Branch.

To put a finer point on it, Sec. Clinton is wrong.

If Condoleezza Rice had tried this tactic she’d have been flayed in the media and deservedly so.

Sec. Clinton is too smart not to know how this sounds as she sits in Jamaica pontificating about congressional loyalties. Suggesting critics are on the side of Gadhaffi if we believe Pres. Obama operated in an unwise and possibly illegal manner in his decision on Libya is a low for Sec. Clinton.

I’m sure the boss appreciates it and her critics can finally see what I said from the start, which is when Clinton joins a team she’ll defend it against all manner of wrong and embarrassment, even if it costs her credibility. She’s as loyal as they come, sometimes to her own detriment, which is certainly the case here.

Foreign policy became a political football a long time ago. It’s wrong no matter who’s doing it and dangerous to U.S. interests, with both Clinton and McConnell offering examples of amateur statesmanship from the Democratic and Republican benches.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh

By on 23 June 2011

“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be a need for revenues and Cantor and Kyl don’t want to be the ones to make that deal.” – unnamed Democratic aide

This is wishful spinning, actually. It’s not about Speaker Boehner it’s about Pres. Obama and 2012.

Mr. Cantor’s also not going to create an extra nightmare by alienating the Tea Partiers on some budget deal that admits we can’t do anything about the economic mess without revenues, aka raising taxes.

In his statement he said this: I believe it is time for the President to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue.

Republicans want Pres. Obama on the record saying he will raise taxes, betting that in the current climate Independents will go ballistic and bolt, though they won’t.

If only Democrats hadn’t caved on spending cuts calculating that by giving a little they would get a little. Worst negotiators ever, with a side of historical amnesia.

What Pres. Obama and the Democrats should do, in fact should have done last fall before Obama extended the Bush tax cuts he said he wouldn’t as a candidate, is make the case for revenue through tax increases, starting with the mil-billionaire class, though it’s not the only thing needed, as I’ve written many times before. The model is Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s Fairness in Taxation Act: $1-10 million: 45%; $10-20 million: 46%; $20-100 million: 47%; $100 million to $1 billion: 48%; $1 billion and over: 49%.

But heaven forbid Democratic “leaders” make the case for revenue and taxes. They don’t even have the gumption to invoke Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes over his political lifetime by double digits.

What Obama doesn’t know about Ronald Reagan’s shenanigans could fill a fairway.

Segue to that radical Reagan and Bush senior adviser, Bruce Bartlett, who’ll drive the message home.

[...] Over the next few years, Reagan came under the influence of Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski, economist Arthur Laffer and other proponents of “supply-side economics.” While skeptical at first, in 1979 Reagan endorsed the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which would have cut statutory income tax rates by about 30 percent across the board. After winning the White House in 1980, Reagan sent the Kemp-Roth proposal to Congress and it was enacted in August 1981.

Almost immediately upon enactment of the 1981 tax cut, Reagan came under enormous pressure to do something about the federal budget deficit. While his preferred approach was to cut spending as much as necessary, it was not politically possible to so. His aides began pressuring him to support a tax increase. Conservative activists were appalled that Reagan would even consider such a thing, but he eventually endorsed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. According to a Treasury Department analysis, it raised taxes by close to one percent of GDP, equivalent to $150 billion per year today, and was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.[11]

This was just the first of many tax increases that President Reagan endorsed and signed into law. There were 11 major tax increases during his administration. And this doesn’t count the fact that Reagan intentionally delayed the start of tax indexing, which was part of the 1981 tax bill, until 1985 so as to capture a lot of anticipated bracket-creep for the Treasury. In fact, it was the failure of inflation to come in as fast as White House economists expected that created much of the deficit problem. I estimate that lower than expected inflation and the loss of bracket creep was responsible for about half the budget deficit in 1981 and 1982.[12] It’s also worth noting that the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was revenue-neutral in the long run, was a fairly substantial revenue-raiser its first year, increasing taxes by $18.6 billion or 0.41 percent of GDP.[13]…

Reagan’s Forgotten Tax Record, by Bruce Bartlett

Mr. Reagan’s tax revenue philosophy was launched in California and stayed with him his entire political career.

“No amount of budget reductions, even if they had been politically palatable, could have balanced California’s budget in 1967. The cornerstone of Governor Reagan’s economic program was not the ballyhooed budget reductions but a sweeping tax package four times larger than the previous record California tax increase obtained by Governor Brown in 1959. Reagan’s proposal had the distinction of being the largest tax hike ever proposed by any governor in the history of the United States.”[1] (source: Bruce Bartlett)

I could write volumes about former Pres. Reagan, but on the tax revenue side, he makes today’s politicians not only look like pikers, but the political amateurs they are.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

WSJ: FTC to Serve Google with Subpoenas in Antitrust Probe

By on 23 June 2011

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Federal Trade Commission is poised to serve Google Inc. with civil subpoenas, according to people familiar with the matter, signaling the start of a wide-ranging, formal investigation into whether the Internet-search giant has abused its dominance on the Web.

[...] The new inquiry, by contrast, will examine fundamental issues relating to Google’s core search-advertising business, said people familiar with the matter. The business is the source of most of Google’s revenue. The issues include whether Google—which accounts for around two-thirds of Internet searches in the U.S. and more abroad—unfairly channels users to its own growing network of services at the expense of rival providers.

Many policy watchers think an FTC probe of Google could ultimately be as much of a watershed for antitrust policy as the Justice Department’s landmark lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. in the 1990s. …

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Obama Reelect Calculates Against Gay Marriage

By on 23 June 2011

Obama’s gay supporters — led by entertainment titan David Geffen — have urged him to back gay marriage, as have a roster of liberal Hollywood celebrities, from Jane Lynch to Ellen DeGeneres. But Obama has been cautious, with Democratic operatives admitting the issue could provoke a backlash among independents and even church-going blacks and Hispanics. – President Obama’s gay marriage problem


via Joe Subday

Earth to “gay community,” Pres. Obama doesn’t lead, he follows polls, trends and voting blocks. So, he likely won’t have any trouble at tonight’s fundraiser, even if New York actually votes on marriage equality today and passes it.

From New York:

Others, though opposed to gay marriage, said they would not support even bringing the bill up for a vote without stronger religious protections than Gov. Cuomo included in his legislation.

The language would ensure that religious groups cannot be sued if they refuse to cater to gay couples, sources said.

It would also block the state from penalizing, discriminating against or denying benefits to religious groups by stripping them of their tax-exempt status or their property tax breaks, they said.

Out of the mouth of Karl Rove slips a bit of truth: Even a small drop in the share of black voters would wipe out his winning margin in North Carolina.

Nate Silver did a post in April on opponents of marriage equality being in the minority. It didn’t, however, address religious communities like African Americans and Hispanics, which even if a minority is against marriage equality, they still have the power to tilt a state away from Pres. Obama in 2012.

Out of New York’s battle:

The event also drew support from Bishop Harry Jackson, the senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in Maryland. Jackson has emerged as the leading African-American voice opposing gay marriage.

“What we have today is a group of people trying to hitchhike on or highjack or take the legacy of the real civil rights movement and make it their own,” Jackson said. “Most African Americans are incensed by this; thus we find in every state a huge majority of African-American voters have voted against same-sex marriage.”

Barack Obama is thinking of his own interests first. The LGBT community simply doesn’t matter to him as much as African American and even Hispanic religious voters, with Obama reelect calculating these two necessary blocks aren’t ready to support gay marriage.

I don’t know why this is so hard to understand or why the LGBT community continues a campaign to persuade Pres. Obama, which will never happen.

“Evolving” on gay marriage is code meant to pacify another zombie voter group who thinks Pres. Obama is their only option.

It brings me to Jon Huntsman’s declaration that’s similar to Obama’s, if more openly honest. He adamantly says redefining marriage is a non-starter, which I think is ridiculous, but we’ll leave that alone, as Obama has the same stance, he’s just more coy about how he says it, stringing the LGBT community along through his “evolving” charade.

Huntsman also says there hasn’t been enough movement on equality, meaning all the legal hurdles put in place to deny health care sharing, death benefits, etc.

If the LGBT community’s political savvy would evolve beyond their singleminded campaign to arm twist Pres. Obama to “evolve already,” which isn’t going to happen, they’d be asking the Huntsman campaign (or any other presidential candidate they could find to build critical mass) for a sit down with him to talk about their issues, asking the candidate to take an equality pledge up as far as possible, even if today it stops short of marriage equality on the national level.

Yes, this sucks. But it’s embarrassing to see the LGBT community running into immovable political walls continually, because they won’t accept or acknowledge Pres. Obama’s self motivation.

Civil union is not marriage, but Pres. Obama isn’t going to change his stance and it’s because his reelection team has calculated that losing African American and Hispanic religious voters in 2012 could cost Obama reelection.

It has absolutely nothing to do with “evolving.”

The issue is personal to the LGBT community, but to Pres. Obama it’s a practical political calculation.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Joe Biden Won the Afghanistan Debate

By on 23 June 2011

official photo by Pete Souza

It’s all about Pakistan now.

Pres. Obama felt compelled to tell the whole history of why we’re in Afghanistan in a bloated, if shorter than usual address to the nation, but this is where he should have started:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

First, as much as I disliked Pres. Obama’s speech last night, it doesn’t come close to the despicable spectacle on Fox News channel when Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain. McCain’s performance was foreshadowed by Bill O’Reilly, when he said Petraeus should basically get whatever he wants, proving it was the Roger Ailes talking point edict of the night. Using General Petraeus to attempt to undermine Pres. Obama showed political cowardice, with Sen. McCain’s opportunism made worse by the anti-constitutional notion that the military is the conductor of U.S. foreign policy and military actions, instead of the President.

Gates even felt compelled to say he supported Pres. Obama’s decision, which clearly was a reaction to the political posturing promoted by Ailes and his minions on Fox.

Steve Clemons hit this note before the speech:

Second, Barack Obama cannot appear to be a tool of the US military or General Petraeus, who has emerged as the stamp of approval or disapproval for some — like John McCain — of what the President decides. This is not healthy for the country. The military executes the President’s strategy, but some in the Pentagon have crossed lines they shouldn’t. Obama needs to show he is in control.

But Pres. Obama should have saved us all the time and simply said, I’m the guy who got bin Laden, so I don’t intend to take crap from anyone.

[...] But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. [...]

The content of Pres. Obama’s speech last night couldn’t have been much worse when he cravenly invoked isolationism, daring to suggest this notion even with there absolutely no evidence that anyone is seriously considering such a position, particularly in his own party, which is where this is directed.

This is Barack Obama at his worst, with his ego showing through because of what’s happening in Congress surrounding Libya, where the President is clearly wrong.

Hearing Obama talk about “progress” and America being “an anchor to global security” was utilizing words of war used by any president stuck in a situation of his own making, while trying to fool his audience it’s what we do. It doesn’t have to be and it no longer can be, especially in a country like Afghanistan that is sucking us dry.

From Spencer Ackerman, in a piece that is really important to read:

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t — do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.

It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

It’s important here to mention David Petraeus moving to Panetta’s renewed C.I.A., where he’ll play an intense leadership role in what Spencer writes about above. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the hearing on the C.I.A.’s wider role, which was so effective in the bin Laden kill.

The big problem with the import of Pres. Obama’s message is the political foundation, culminating right before the election.

It’s simply no way to run a foreign policy, but that’s what our politics pushes, so politicians like ambitious presidents seeking a second term don’t get caught on the losing side of wars.

As for V.P. Joe Biden, he never wanted the Afghanistan surge, Libya or Iraq, and always thought Pakistan was the ballgame in this region (read his guest post on the subject from 2007). He won’t get the credit, but his message finally got through.

Sen. McCain couldn’t resist a jab at V.P. Biden when talking to Hannity, complete with that pinched little grin McCain plasters on his mug when he’s on camera and knows he’s been beaten.

The House should not let Pres. Obama’s timid withdrawal plans stop them from challenging him, just as they continue to do on Libya.

Of course, we all know what happens when courage is shown in the House. The Senate responds with silence.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Obama’s Afghanistan Pitch Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test

By on 22 June 2011

ThinkProgress has assembled the following graph showing that if the reductions are carried out as planned, the United States would still have far more troops in Afghanistan than it did when Obama came into office and more than at any point during former president George W. Bush’s administration… – Think Progress

At the end of the evening we will all be faced with the realization that Pres. Obama’s Afghanistan “surge” will take until after Election Day 2012 to complete. It will then leave around 70,000 U.S. forces inside a country on the cusp of a civil war.

So where does the New York Times get these headlines?

As the Think Progress graphic reveals, the United States would still have far more troops in Afghanistan than it did when Obama came into office and more than at any point during former president George W. Bush’s administration.

The smartest person in the room on Afghanistan isn’t Barack Obama and it’s not Hillary Clinton or Bob Gates. For a very long time it’s been V.P. Joe Biden.

From Huffington Post’s David Wood, which you really should read:

President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan signals the beginning of the end for the ambitious counterinsurgency strategy that Army Gen. David Petraeus designed and has single-mindedly pursued in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His strategy, which embraced the concept of “winning the people” rather than simply killing the enemy, has attracted a growing number of critics — including Vice President Joe Biden, senior members of Congress and even veteran military officers — who contend that it didn’t work in Iraq and hasn’t worked in Afghanistan. Within the ranks, COIN has become known disparagingly as “armed nation building.”

While Tim Pawlenty doubles down on John McCainisms, which reveals a reinvigoration and reinvention since his debate collapse against Romney. Jon Hunstman’s to the left of Pres. Obama on Afghanistan, Libya and interventionism in general, as I wrote this morning.

So, Pres. Obama’s in between Pawlenty and Huntsman, two Republicans?

This drawdown doesn’t mean squat in the scheme of things.

We’ll still neck deep in Obama’s war in Afghanistan.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Al Gore Chides Obama to Use Bully Pulpit on Climate Change

By on 22 June 2011

Poor Al.

He wants so badly to help Pres. Barack Obama find his inner presidential activist on behalf of important international policy. But while he scolds him, Mr. Gore also neuters his effectiveness by giving Pres. Obama power over him and the message he’s desperate to drill home.

The Joplin tornado proved how badly a leader is needed. Last week my brother Larry traveled to Joplin, Mo. where he was born. There’d never been such a catastrophe like the tornado that recently decimated this quaint mining town. We’d talked and I’d hoped he’d make the trip once they were letting people in again. He wanted to see the houses he grew up and lived in, to see if they were still standing, along with the hospital where he was born, which took direct hits. All 3 houses of Larry’s childhood, grandma and grandpa’s too, made it through the tornado, his junior high school did not. But seeing Joplin was a stunning trip for him, even as current residents work their way back.

This is part of what our weather has become. The Rush Limbaugh flat earth crowd is oblivious, because they’re still moored in the 19th century, ignoring science, even evolution, not taking the stewardship of our planet seriously.

The problem remains that Obama’s too scared he’ll alienate some far flung Blue Dog or Independent or discover an extinct liberal Republican that might vote for him in North Carolina that he won’t say what’s needed to be said. He’s been in this state for a long time.

It’s time for Mr. Gore to face that Pres. Obama hasn’t been able to find the courage or vision to inspire Americans to join together for any cause and today people wouldn’t listen if he did.

Even with Obama’s incredible power he once had coming into office, he couldn’t get a Democratic Congress to join together to pass important Democratic legislation, with even the health care bill a mish-mash of private insurance benefits and giveaways to Big Phrma. Why anyone thinks at this point he’s going to rally people behind a cause is beyond me.

But because we’re in a desperate climate situation, including losing our oceans, Mr. Gore is driven to try. From Gore’s Rolling Stone article:

[...] But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that “drill, baby, drill” is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.

[...] … Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon. And whatever approach is eventually chosen, the U.S. simply must provide leadership by changing our own policy.

Yet without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is “the power to persuade.” Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.

Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.

Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don’t take chances.

All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn’t “real.” Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. [...]

What Mr. Gore ignores is that whatever capital Pres. Obama once had he has squandered. There isn’t enough hope to believe he can change to lead on climate change. Even if Obama wins reelection, his second term won’t be about Democratic change, but he will likely go for historic accomplishments like “dealing with entitlements.”

It might be hard for people to understand what I’m now about to write. But given Pres. Obama’s failure to use the presidential bully pulpit for anything but to help himself, whether through issues that serve his long-term interests or political future, on climate change, leadership may now have to come from an unlikely source.

Could climate change be the Republicans’ Nixon to China moment if they get into office in 2012? I’m not betting on it, that’s for sure, because Republicans today are a rag tag lot of miserable austerity hacks.

But reading Mr. Gore write this incredible statement reveals the problem with the Democratic establishment, including the best and brightest:

All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward.

The Democratic Party will continue to be ineffectual, weak and a party of corporate interests, including on policy, if they believe pleading to a president who knows he won’t face consequences for his betrayals will change the equation.

At some point, Democrats and progressives are going to have to decide what’s more important, one man and winning or the principles on which their party once stood.

The men backing Jon Huntsman have decided for the sake of the future they think his candidacy is worth standing behind, because it might pave the way for something amazing to happen, like the huge fundraising on his first day out. Maybe they’ll get lucky in the face of such an uninspiring GOP field, but they simply know they can’t tolerate what’s being stood up in the name of Reagan’s party.

Too bad Democrats and progressives don’t feel the same way about F.D.R.’s party.

Al Gore’s piece is a tortured plea, as filled with angst as the entire progressive movement is when it comes to Barack Obama. Lecturing this man won’t change him.

Ask any woman who goes to work trying to change a man, falling in love with the person she thinks he is or could be instead of the man he actually is. It always ends badly, either in breakup or divorce, unless she’s stupid and lazy enough to choose to live with much less than she deserves.

The planet doesn’t stand a chance against these odds.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Summer Fundraiser Thank You

By on 22 June 2011

CONTRIBUTE & SUPPORT TAYLOR

Broadway Bound!

Thanks to so many of you who gave this past week. Believe me, if I didn’t have to I wouldn’t run these fundraisers.

I love this work and you help make it possible.

The truth is that people don’t give regularly and if I don’t ask I can’t run this site, because I simply cannot work this hard to lose money.

well even though you already know, I’m still not going to tell you how old I am, but I will tell you this. I have believed in you and trusted you for over 40 years. Recently I have asked you to help me with something and you have come through with flying colors, so I thank you for that and certainly don’t mind investing in my continued education. – CG

For the many of you who didn’t contribute, remember you can always pitch in. There’s a donate button at the top left corner of the site.

For those of you who understand that new media is a business, even if it’s of the PBS variety, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Obama Loses his Grip on Hope

By on 22 June 2011

by Pete Souza


Change left the building a long time ago. As for hope, it’s going, going…

From Bloomberg:

By a 44 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans say they believe they are worse off than when President Barack Obama took office in early 2009, when the U.S. was in the depths of a recession compounded by the September 2008 financial crisis and the economy was losing as many as 820,000 jobs a month.

The gloom covers the immediate future, with fewer than 1 in 10 people expecting unemployment to return to pre-recession levels within the next two years, and it extends to the next generation. More than half of respondents say their children are destined to have a lower standard of living than they do, upending a traditional touchstone of the American Dream.

Nothing is more dangerous than this emotional quotient. People vote on how they feel, regardless of the numbers. It’s a very bad indicator for Obama reelect, but the good news is this isn’t summer 2012.

The trouble is Pres. Obama hasn’t a clue when it comes to emotionally engaging and steering the public through the rough times and they know it.

…let’s look at the economist Rebecca Blank, a candidate to replace Austan Goolsbee as the White House’s chief economic adviser. Blank is a “pragmatic progressive” economist, which apparently means someone who feels bad about the damage caused by the problems they aren’t trying to fix. “Could this economy take off again?” Blank said recently in the National Journal, “The answer is absolutely yes. If you look at corporate profits, if you look at consumer balance sheets [improving] … gas prices are falling. I guess I understand the reason to say, ‘Let’s see if this economy can do it on its own.’” On its own? Really? Tell this to the more than 9 percent currently unemployed. [...] If Blank is any indication, the plan is hope. – At least Weiner was a distraction, by Matt Stoller

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Comes a Worrisome ‘Gentleman’ Candidate

By on 22 June 2011

If anything, it’s McCain and Graham who are nurturing a rebirth of isolationism by going for the easy insult. Isolationism is an actual doctrine, with a rich and complicated intellectual history on the left and the right. It is not an adjective that can be accurately applied to anyone who disagrees with a specific course of action or who is simply weary of a decade of war. But, if wanting to be done with Libya and Afghanistan is now the measure of what isolationism means, then a lot of Americans are going to say, “Hey, that sounds pretty good to me.” – Jonah Goldberg

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

Barack Obama has gone so far right channeling his inner Republican, especially on big presidential decisions like war and military, but including his timidity on economic issues that borrow from the Republican model, that he’s actually set himself up to be challenged from the left by Republicans. It’s got to be confusing to a lot of Democrats and progressives, starting with Rachel Maddow.

It was an unremarkable announcement, except perhaps for the Easter egg dress choreography of the Huntsman family women, which was lovely, and of course, the Statue of Liberty in the background commemorating a Reagan moment. So, it was very interesting to see Rachel Maddow give Jon Huntsman the full slam, complete with pitch perfect beatnik opener.

It all came to a screaching halt when her guest, a Utah reporter, offered up anecdotal evidence that Jon Huntsman is a quirky former governor with a decent record and resume, someone who’s considered a gentleman, and is so nice his Democratic opponent hugged him after having lost a race to him. It caught Ms. Maddow up short coming after her blistering critique of a campaign announcement that committed the crime of boring.

It came on a hot Tuesday afternoon, when nobody was watching Jon Huntsman but the press. That’s the real beef Maddow had. The D.C. press have a new darling, with Obama reelect also a bit worried about the gentleman who’s got a serious resume, including on foreign policy, whose a Republican calling for less inteventionism and he’s not Ron Paul.

When Maddow tried to make the case that Obama announcing a drawdown in Afghanistan today blew one of Jon Huntsman’s campaign positions out of the water she couldn’t have been more wrong. Huntsman has been saying since he went public after leaving the Obama administration, that he believes we need to get out of Afghanistan, but also that he wouldn’t have engaged in Libya as Obama, because it’s “not core to our national security interest,” and that we need to be less involved in Middle East wars.

Coming from Pres. Obama’s former ambassador to China makes these ideas doubly intriguiging.

Obama’s announcement on Afghanistan was expected to come any time in the next few weeks. It’s just they surprised everyone by moving it up. As hard as Maddow was making the case that Obama’s announcement supposedly big-footed one of Huntsman’s main platforms of his presidential campaign, it’s just as easy to say Obama moved the decision up to the day after Huntsman’s announcement to step on his message and take him out of the news.

The motocross ads were causing a lot of buzz, but there are just as many people who think they suck. Joe Scarborough asked if Huntsman was trying to appeal to the “stoner” crowd.

The urgency in Maddow’s dressing down of what she saw as a bad roll out for Huntsman didn’t come close to matching the moment. Amateur mistakes from Huntsman, including the misspelling of his name, are beyond stupid. But nobody cares.

There’s no evidence yet Jon Huntsman can overtake slick Mitt, who’s raising money and keeping a low profile. There’s no evidence the wingnuts that make up the primary Republican voters will let Huntsman survive, which is why he’s betting it all on New Hampshire. Huntman’s moderate stance on civil unions, at least for a Republican, is balanced by his right-wing stance on women’s freedoms and a number of other things typically Republican, including austerity. But Mr. Huntsman has also said he won’t sign Grover Norquist’s tax pledge, while Romney will.

For the first time in decades tax increases could come back on the table. I’m so heady about this possibility I’m fighting the vapors.

Fred Davis’s off beat ad campaign style is a hoot, but the real treat is that Huntsman and other Republicans are actually taking conservative positions on military intervention for a change.

Huntsman’s comments on Obama’s Libya intervention are on target and important for the debate, because it pushes Obama to defend his militarism. With Huntsman’s seasoned foreign policy voice, Republicans have another player pushing Obama from the left on interventionism, while Congress presses Pres. Obama on Libya. It’s enough to make me giddy.

The George W. Bush doctrine of preemptive war is dead and Pres. Obama is looking more militaristic than the Republicans.

David Plouffe said he was a “wee bit queasy” about Jon Huntsman way back in 2009 and it wasn’t because he was a lightweight.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Newt Gringrich Fundraisers Quits

By on 21 June 2011

Newt Gingrich’s top two fundraising advisers resigned on Tuesday, and officials said the Republican candidate’s hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt. – APNewsBreak

This is the guy who wants to take charge of the U.S. economy?

It’s gotten so bad for the disreputable former speaker that he’s traded in his private jets for commercial. Boy, Callista must be pissed. There’s nothing worse for a wannabe richy rich than being humiliated in front of coach passengers.

It won’t be long now.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Kerry & McCain’s Fig Leaf for Libya

By on 21 June 2011

Allowing the trivialization of the War Powers Act to stand will open the way for even more blatant acts of presidential war-making in the decades ahead. Congress must confront the increasingly politicized methods White House lawyers are using to circumvent established law and stop them from transforming it into an infinitely malleable instrument of presidential power. – Bruce Ackerman

As an audition for Sec. Clinton’s job, this isn’t a bad way to go for Sen. John Kerry.

From Politico:

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a resolution Tuesday that would give President Barack Obama the green light to continue limited military operations in Libya. The language of the proposal has more teeth than the sense of the Senate resolution McCain and Kerry rolled out last month, which was merely a symbolic gesture backing the Libya effort. The latest plan would authorize U.S. operations in Libya but expire after one year, and would make clear that the Senate agrees there is no need or desire to put boots on the ground in the North African nation.

It’s a cinch Pres. Obama isn’t standing on solid ground with his humanitarian excuse. If that really meant anything we wouldn’t be turning our heads at the carnage happening beyond the eyes of press and the world in Assad’s Syria.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

LA Times Report: 10,000 Force Drawdown in Afghanistan this Year

By on 21 June 2011

**UPDATED**

President Obama plans to announce a troop reduction in Afghanistan that Pentagon and other administration officials say is expected to bring home about 10,000 personnel by the end of the year. – Obama expected to announce major Afghan drawdown

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

Zbigniew Brzezinski has a low bar for Pres. Obama. Sending a message for a “token of confidence” that things are moving in the right direction and that we’re not “stuck.” Ignoring Afghanistan after troops have left is the biggest mistake the U.S. has made over the last two decades, with Brzezinski naming former Pres. Clinton as having ignored Afghanistan. Staying engaged is his bottom line, which must include regional involvement from Pakistan, India, China and Russia.

But if Obama’s Wednesday speech doesn’t explain how the drawdown supports a political strategy for ending the war, it’ll mean one thing: he has no idea how to get out of Afghanistan. – Spencer Ackerman

Reports today reveal Pres. Obama will begin to drawdown the “surge” portion of his administration’s escalation of 30,000 troops this year, beginning with 10,000, with the remaining 20,000 to come home by 2012. It leaves 70,000 U.S. forces inside Afghanistan.

CNN is reporting this headline: Obama to announce plan to pull 30,000 troops out of Afghanistan.

However, 10,000 would be the starting number, which isn’t what the military wanted, as they were hoping for token troop withdrawal in the neighborhood of 3,000-4,000, which is politically unworkable in today’s climate.

Pres. Obama initially pledged to clean up George W. Bush’s mess in Afghanistan, after he dropped the ball to preemptively invade Iraq. However, Obama’s mission creep has been consistent, going into nation building from the start.

Part of that is due to his stalwart partner Sec. Clinton who believes strongly in our mission inside Afghanistan, particularly where Afghan society is concerned, particularly women’s roles.

I was on board until Stanley McChrystal’s implosion, which made the reality very stark, as it takes looking into the blackest abyss to cause a general to kill his own career.

Pres. Obama is under intense pressure from the Pentagon, who is no doubt telling him that he could be the proud owner of a failure on his watch if the withdrawal is too steep. It’s what the military always tells civilian leadeship, which has the same reaction every time.

I want to hear the Republicans make a different argument, the one begun by Ron Paul. Specifically, I want to hear Jon Huntsman make the case for complete Afghanistan withdrawal over the next 3-5 years. People forget that’s how long these things take.

If the presidential race could be about U.S. lack of foreign policy discipline and misadventurism it would actually be worth the space it will take up. Because there is no more important fiscal challenge to tackle than U.S. indiscriminate and unbridled spending in wars that have no end.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

‘I’m Jon Huntsman and I’m humbled.’

By on 21 June 2011

**UPDATED**

jon2012 on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

…and he’s in.

“We are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got. This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American,” Huntsman is expected to say in his speech.

… “He assured us we could ‘make America great again,’ and under his leadership we did. I stand in his shadow as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty,” Huntsman is also expected to say.

[...] “He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love,” Huntsman will say according to his prepared remarks. “But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president; not who’s the better American.”

Saddest of all, Huntsman said, “we have lost faith in ourselves.” Painting a picture of America that is “less” than what our parents had, he said that we have the “character to astonish the world again.” Then in the next breath he lauded our inherent possibilities.

Mr. Huntsman’s first job is to get his name and persona on the map, as most Americans don’t know who the hell he is.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Olbermann Relaunches ‘Countdown’ on Current

By on 21 June 2011

At our house, we’re moving to a new media provider for many reasons, with the bonus being Keith Olbermann (we’re paying for a higher tier to get Current), because Current is carried by our new carrier, though we won’t have it for a couple of weeks. That Current is Al Gore’s baby is another plus.

It’s great to see his “worst persons” come back, especially with Sarah Palin, as well as Fox News channel, getting honors tonight, which you can see online over at Current.

Libya is spotlighted in the clip below, but it’s on a separate page, because Current doesn’t have the “auto off” feature working.

It’s interesting to see Michael Moore reveal how thoroughly he misunderstood candidate Obama on foreign policy simply because of one speech, though it no longer surprises me. When it came to paying attention to details, Mr. Moore was like a lot of people who simply missed reality.

Can’t wait until the media switch over at our house. Agree or disagree with Olbermann, nobody does it like him.

Oh, and to add, if anyone saw the entire episode I’d love to hear what you thought. The pictures Olbermann showed of the set looked fabulous.

Michael Moore and Olbermann on Libya after the jump… Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

John McCain: Illegal Immigrants Did It

By on 20 June 2011

“There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally.” – John McCain

The Wallow Fire, as you likely know by now, is now the largest in Arizona history, having ravaged over 500,000 acres. The cause is believed to have been an “escaped campfire.”

Under fire for his irresponsible statements, Sen. John McCain clarifies his intense bigotry, after it was debunked.

“The facts are clear. For years, federal, state and local officials have stated that smugglers and illegal immigrants have caused fires on our southern border,” said Brooke Buchanan, Senator McCain’s communications director. “During the press conference on Saturday, Senator McCain was referring to fires on the Arizona/Mexico border, not the Wallow Fire.”

Sen. McCain has reduced himself over the years to a crazy person yelling at shadows appearing in his own mind. It’s hard to recognize the man he once was in 2000.

“The degree of irresponsible political pandering by Sen. McCain has no limits. With the lack of evidence, he might as well also blame aliens from outer space for the fires.” – Angelo Falcon, the president of the National Institute for Latino Policy, CNN

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Kennebunkport Republicans Choose Huntsman

By on 20 June 2011

Tomorrow from Jon Huntsman Jr. on Vimeo.

Mark Halperin is the Republican establishment’s most accurate weathervane:

This is the first, but by no means the last, of eye-catching endorsements Huntsman will get from the GOP Establishment, including many with ties to Ronald Reagan and Bushes 41 and 43. Gray’s endorsement will be a semiotic dog whistle for a lot of big-time bundlers. …

C. Boyden Gray is reportedly readying to become Huntman’s policy team leader.

The discontent in the blue blood branch, also keepers of Ronald Reagan’s torch, just don’t buy that flip-flopping, vulture capitalist Mitt Romney is a genuine GOP conservative.

There’s no doubt he’s the frontrunner, but I’ve been sensing for a while just watching Mr. Romney, whether through his announcement or last week’s debate, that he’s forcing the point in a way that seems rooted in more insecurity than surety. Yes, he’s more relaxed than last time, but that’s not a high bar. His dodging questions on culture is a slick trick for the purposes of the general election, but he’s got to get through the primaries first, something Hillary Clinton could warn him about.

Republican establishment ego demands a man who is as smart as they think they are, even if there’s no evidence that the Tea Party and right-wingers have any interest in their upper crust branding or things that might make Republicans appealing to a larger electorate.

I won’t say something as trite as establishment Republicans are fighting for the soul of the GOP, even as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum prove they don’t have one. But there clearly is a wing of the Republican Party who thinks smart is cool and is willing to bet on losing to get behind Jon Huntsman, who announces tomorrow, if only to pave the way for 2016 and the big Republican battle, at a time the GOP establishment hopes the Tea Party has lost its strength.

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Jon Stewart admitted he’d voted for George H.W. Bush over Dukakis.

There hasn’t been a Republican that Democrats could vote for in twenty years.

As for Huntsman being that guy, the motocross pitch will certainly get my husband’s attention.

After the announcement, Huntsman and his charter plane – including family members and a few dozen journalists – will fly to New Hampshire, where he’ll have a rally with about 300 folks. He’ll return to New York City for a finance reception and dinner. On Wednesday morning, Huntsman’s charter will take off for Columbia, S.C., where he’ll tour a factory and hold a media availability, then attend a meet-and-greet with activists and file candidacy papers. After that, it’s off to Miami. On Thursday, he’ll open his campaign headquarters in Orlando, with some senior staffers seeing them for the first time. Then it’s on to Nevada, Utah, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts – and the amazing, draining adventure of running for president. – Mike Allen

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Supreme Court Unanimously Decides Wal-Mart Case on Class Size

By on 20 June 2011

Big verdict today. From CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin:

“The Supreme Court has basically said this is too big a case,” Toobin said. “The facts are so different regarding each of the plaintiffs that it’s not fair to Wal-Mart to lump them into one case.” – Toobin: High Court addressed only class size, not discrimination, in Wal-Mart suit

John Nichols from The Nation has a different take:

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a new protected class: The “Too Big for Justice” corporations.

The high court on Monday rejected a massive job discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., on the grounds that the class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was too large.

In other words, because there is reason to believe that Walmart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women, as opposed to just a few, the company cannot be held to account for any lawlessness. …

Too big for justice attempts to put this decision in the Wall Street category made famous during the recent financial collapse.

More from Toobin:

The case could be resuscitated, Toobin said, but attorneys would have to “figure out another way to get the courts to consider the possibility that there was enormous gender discrimination at Wal-Mart. That conversation will continue. This lawsuit in its current form will not,” he added, saying the lawsuit could be reconfigured into several smaller lawsuits, which would pose less of a threat to Wal-Mart.

But as of today, Wal-Mart is celebrating.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Grudge Match Anti-Obama Hillary Voter Stories Begin

By on 20 June 2011

This is as ridiculous as it is predictable. Sure, there are those who hold a grudge over 2008, but the numbers couldn’t elect the mayor in your local town. However, there are plenty of disgruntled Barack Obama voters who think his Republican policies, especially on economics and foreign policy, is not worth voting for again, though these same people are still likely to hold their nose to vote Democratic if right wing politics is the only other choice.

But grudge match articles remain the fall back fighting position of the Right. But it’s a very narrow story, even if Tucker Carlson and others won’t tell that side. Of course, it comes from Daily Caller, though it could have been from Drudge:

“After 2008 [Clinton voters] were basically told get over it, and they haven’t gotten over it,” Amy Siskind, president of the feminist advocacy group The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller.

Women, however, did vote for Obama in droves with the hope that he would tackle the issues important to them once in office. This has not been the case according to many Hillary Clinton supporters.

“Barack Obama wasn’t the women’s candidate in 2008 and he is not the women’s president midway through 2011,” Diane Mantouvalos, a 2008 Clinton supporter and co-founder of HireHeels.com (“a forum of power chics for Hillary”) noted.

According to Manatouvalos — who pointed to a March 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report that showed 90 percent of recovery jobs had gone to men in the prior 12 months as proof — Obama has hardly been the women-friendly executive so many thought he could be.

Indeed, while women did vote for Obama by a margin of 13 percentage points over the GOP in 2008, Democrats lost the women’s vote to Republicans by 1 percentage point during the 2010 elections, based on exit polling.

Pres. Obama wasn’t on the ballot in 2010, but the disastrously marketed health care bill was. So, the 2010 numbers were real, including that women split evenly, as did seniors. You’d think with the war on women the GOP is waging across this country there would be less of a worry in 2012. But today, economics trumps abortion rights advocate issues, with the feeling people have about the economy a lot more troublesome for Obama than the numbers.

From the comments I received after my summer newsletter went out yesterday, one comment in particular represented those I’ve received lately, revealing that some Hillary voters, of which I have a newsletter list of thousands from 2008, are wondering a lot about what might have been.

“after skimming the entries about netroots nation, just wanted to ask if you could comment–regularly–on how Hillary would have/might have been different on various issues. people must learn from their mistake in 2008. there isn’t enough–any–conversation on how it happened. I was an Edwards supporter but I switched to Hillary and appreciated your fierce partisanship. On some issues, I’m convinced she’d have been better, others, I wonder. would love to hear what you and others think.” – Lauren

Two questions from my newsletter were, one, if Obama’s base will come out for him; two, what’s the most pressing political issue on your mind? Part of Lauren’s response was “grief that we have no one speaking nationally for us.”

That last item in bold is the most common thing I hear. That the Democratic Party no longer speaks for many people who voted for Obama in 2008. Richard Trumka leads this pack, which is powerful. In California, Trumka is working with liberal Republicans, though it will be interesting to see if he can replicate it eleswhere.

Now, again, rank and file election centric Democrats don’t really care what the Democratic Party stands for and doesn’t fight for political principles. These people are zombie voters on which the party leadership depends, which includes some of your favorite political writers who always push party over political principle. It’s the lesser of two evils strategy that gets us Democrats like Obama who were against the Bush tax cuts as a candidate, then for them as president, then against them when reelect is on the horizon. Still, the evidence that Pres. Obama has the loyal support of At Least He’s Not Republican Democratic voters is overwhelming.

The issue oriented progressives and Democrats, as well as those who gave Obama a chance only to see him mimic George W. Bush, well, not so much, but they’re a minority. However, we are living through an era where close presidential elections can be swayed by the fickle, the fallen away, and the fed up.

It all depends who the Republican nominee is.

As for so called “Hillary voters,” in Pennsylvania right now, a state that loves both Clintons, but not so much Barack Obama, there is little evidence that with the current choices Republicans can beat Obama yet. From Quinnipiac, June 15:

In possible presidential election matchups, President Obama tops Romney 47 – 40 percent and leads Santorum 49 – 38 percent. Independent voters back Obama, 41 – 37 percent over Romney and 46 – 35 percent over Santorum.

But that won’t keep sites like Daily Caller from running the anti Obama Hillary voters story. Rehashing mythic tales is the stuff of election seasons.

As for Lauren’s “what might have been” question, if you have thoughts she wants to hear them.

Photo: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza, with Pres. Obama walking around Buckingham Palace, circa May 2011.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Stewart to Wallace: Fox Viewers ‘Most Consistently Misinformed’

By on 20 June 2011

Read full story · Comments { 4 }