Taylor Marsh - News, Political Analysis, Foreign Policy, and Independent Political Opinion on Progressive Politics
Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.
Archive | July, 2011
On this day in history, July 10, 1509, theologian John Calvin, a key figure of the Protestant Reformation, was born France.
Some news that caught my eye this fine morning:
~Elizabeth Warren for Senate?
~The GOP has predictably rebuffed the President’s so-called Grand Bargain, which is really a Grand Capitulation to corporate interests on the backs of the middle class, so perhaps its a good thing. Interestingly, polls consistently show that the American people are on the Democrats’ side with this- they see no problem whatsoever with tax increases for the richest Americans, closing some of the ridiculous tax loopholes that create subsidies for big business etc. So now we are back to the cuts/revenue increases that were part of the Biden-led negotiations.
~Witchita, Kansas, again becomes Ground Zero in the battle for abortion rights.
~The Washington Post’s resident right wing hack, Jennifer Rubin, thinks that defense spending has nothing to do with the deficit. I still can’t believe the WaPo gave her a platform. Oh, wait, Fred Hiatt, Jackson Diehl, Krauthammer. Never mind, yes I can.
~Mitchell Plitnick over at LobeLog has a good piece on why the U.S. is so frantic about the possible upcoming UN vote about Palestinian statehood. In addition to putting Israel and the U.S. in a very, very tricky spot, the reality is that things have changed since the Arab Spring and the release of the Palestinian Papers- something which the Obama administration seems reluctant to take to heart. The Palestinians can no longer enter negotiations without achieving substantive results, end of story. That’s the new reality. The U.S., meanwhile, has nothing to offer but the same old, failed formula of never-ending negotiations that achieve nothing other than the further entrenchment of the occupation beyond the Green Line and the Palestinians know this. Hence, the UN vote.
~Ann Coulter thinks we bombed Egypt, which caused Hosni Mubarak to leave. Jesus Christ! WHY CAN’T THE REPUBLICANS DO FOREIGN POLICY?!?
~Eric Cantor cancels the July 18th House recess. Isn’t every day recess in the House?
~Winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan.
~The life of Betty Ford.
~John Aravosis thinks Obama should appoint a top level LGBT adviser. Dream on.
~It’s nice to know that James Murdoch is just as much a scum-bag as his father.
~For a great article on the cozy relationship between the elder Murdoch and British politicians, check out this article. The sad thing is, the same corrosive media/political cronyism is right here in our own Beltway.
~ Dick Morris’ makes stuff up. Again. Note to the right: Using Israel as a political wedge issue is a really bad idea…for Israel.
~South Sudan declares independence.
~Glenn Greenwald points out that in our effort to fight terrorism, we’re actually creating more terrorists. It’s like a hamster wheel of sorts.
~Ever wonder what happened to the so-called American Taliban, John Walker Lindh? Read this article from his father with a rather disturbing update. Now remember, Lindh is in jail as part of a plea deal for joining and fighting with the Taliban (the govt had no proof he was a “terrorist”, a with whom we are [right now unofficially] negotiating with.
~Alex Pareene over at Salon’s ‘War Room’ points out that when it comes to terrorism-foreign policy-national security coverage, the Washington Post has No. Standards. Whatsoever.
~Keeping Michele Bachmann from letting go of the reins is probably more than a full-time job for her fancy new advisor Ed Rollins, but she clearly slipped away from him for a moment to be the first (and hopefully only) Presidential candidate to sign “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” Naturally, anything with the word “family” in coming from the far, far, far right includes stuff about gay people, Sharia Law and porn. Or something. Naturally, Pamela Gellar is thrilled.
~The feds have ruled that marijuana has no acceptable medical use. You can read more about Obama’s War on Pot here. The admin. seems to be harder on medical marijuana growers/users than he is on the Big Banks that caused the global financial crisis. #fail.
~Forty people are dead in a mere 24 hours in Mexico- drug and gang related violence.
The End.
[cross-posted over at USFoPo and the Middle East]
Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
I love this bit from FDL blogger Eli:
FDR told his base, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it,” while saying of the corporate right, “I welcome their hatred.” Obama has done the exact reverse.
So which is worse? The president who serves his base and sets the country on fire, or the president who stiffs his base and fights fire with gasoline?
Congressman Grijalva lays out the case on Maddow against POTUS and the GOP cutting social programs. Hark real Democratic talking points!
David Sirota on Salon argues what most Americans get: that if Obama cuts SS we all will suffer, and the Democratic Party will collapse:
In an age of politics that has melded politicians with celebrity and activism with starfucking, to be a rank-and-file progressive and honestly examine a candidate’s record during a reelection campaign is to risk being portrayed as a dangerous, seditious, ideologically zealous revolutionary.
After Wednesday night, though, the power of this kind of with-us-or-against-us partisanship will face it’s ultimate test. Because while the intricacies of health care, Wall Street regulations and trade pacts can be muddled with esoterica and while Democratic presidents have shown a deft ability to soothe their base by conflating militarism with humanitarianism (the same trick, of course, that Republicans use for their militarist adventures), this Democratic president is aiding a new war on Social Security, the single most popular social program in American history, a program that the Democratic Party has — both in principle and out of sheer self-interest — long based its brand on. Whether Obama ultimately champions specific cuts or just floats the general possibility of such cuts, the larger news is that he has now legitimized them as a negotiating chip — and importantly, he made such a move on his own, not because of circumstantial necessity.
I like his analogy to Fargo, the film of great fame for its grizzly last scene:
…like that gruesome scene at the end of “Fargo,” Social Security — a pay-as-you-go embodiment of fiscal responsibility — is being rammed into the grisly woodchipper of cynical debt-reduction politics. Only instead of a glowering Peter Stormare (or Mitt Romney) doing the pushing, there’s a cheery President Obama insisting that cuts are really just progressive efforts to “strengthen” — the same Obama who chastised his 2008 Republican opponent for using the same pathetic spin to shroud cuts to the same program.
This is not real politik, it is not triangulation and it isn’t even Bush-ism (that is, taking unpopular positions and then just arrogantly pursuing them without regard for public will). No, we are watching a sort of Orwellian dystopia. Indeed, it is a sight to behold: a regime that believes it can say one set of things over and over and over again, and then do exactly the opposite.
Inherent in that ideology is the assumption that Americans — and particularly Democratic voters — .. are too entranced by their president’s power/fame/celebrity/charisma to want to do anything about it, even if what’s being pilfered is Democrats’ Social Security crown jewel.
The assumption, in other words, is that ignorance and fealty will permit a president to serve as an accomplice to the very grand larceny he was explicitly elected to office to oppose. Should the assumption prove true — should Obama now be cheered on for doing to Social Security what no Republican president has ever been able to do — the date on the calendar may say 2011, but it will really be 1984.
Privitization is a mad enterprise. Too many cities and states are doing it. Government can run things like airports and roads very efficiently and cheaply. I am tired of seeing Dems move to privatize government functions. How did Reagan’s privatizing of the post office work out? It has been a disaster with stamp prices soaring and debts mounting. So Sen. Durbin and Rep. De Fazio are introducing legislation to end privatizing roads and airports. A great move:
A member of the US Senate leadership is looking to stop states and cities from selling America’s freeways and airports to private companies. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), the assistant majority leader, introduced the Protecting Taxpayers in Transportation Asset Transfers Act on June 17 to rein in governments officials who would sell off roads to meet short-term budget needs, leaving motorists to pay far more in the long run in tolls and other fees.
“The federal government provides states and local governments billions of dollars to build, maintain and improve transportation projects around the country,” Durbin said in a statement. “The last transportation bill alone provided states with an average of $48 billion per year for upgrades to roads, bridges and mass transit systems. Any deal to sell or lease these assets should be closely examined and include a return on the federal taxpayer investment.”
Durbin was particularly upset by Chicago’s deal to lease its parking meters to Morgan Stanley for $1.2 billion. Nearly all of this money was spent by former Mayor Richard M. Daley, leaving drivers to pay massive increases in the cost of parking that will add up to an estimated $11.6 billion over 75 years.
“This legislation protects against fire sales of our existing public assets while making certain the public’s interest is fully protected in future public/private partnership agreements,” the House sponsor of the legislation, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), said in a statement.
In the debt debate House liberals are pushing to regulate big pharma’s profits by regulating drug costs in Medicare D (which should have been done ages ago):
“The proposals that we’ve put on the table have to do with rebates for the pharmaceutical industry,” Van Hollen told HuffPost. “The idea of giving Medicare negotiating authority and going to the same rebate policy that was in place in 2005, yeah, those are things that we’ve actually proposed.”
HuffPost asked if Republicans were open to the pharmaceutical proposal. “I don’t want to characterize what happened in the talks, but that has been part of the conversation,” he said.
A GOP source confirmed that Democrats had put the proposal on the table and that Republicans were continuing to look at it.
Changes to rebate policies in both Medicaid and Medicare could raise billions of dollars. A House bill in the last Congress — reintroduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in this session — would have required the industry to return some of its Medicare Part D money to the government. The rebate proposal would have saved $63 billion over ten years, according to an analysis done at the time by the Congressional Budget Office.
Speaking of the debt deal Senator Sanders and Whitehouse are vowing to bring down any deal with cuts to SS, Medicare and the safety net. A must listen to bit here .
Kudos this week to Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) whp has blasted members of his own party, including Obama, for putting on the table the New Deal. Sens. Whitehouse and Sanders are teaming up on the issue. Sen. Whitehouse has introduced a resolution in the Senate laying out the facts and opposition to any anti-New Deal. read it here.
Sen. Whitehouse is the founder of the Social Security Caucus. Here he is on the Senate floor brilliantly explaining why SS is NOT the problem, nor is Medicare. See this is what a real liberal Democrat sounds like. And yes, he has real constituent stories in his very moving speech. A must see:
Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
The reason I have been a Democrat is because Dems are supposed to protect Social Security and the welfare state. Dems, the real ones, back progressive taxation. I found out about the hard way the wonders that leaders like FDR and LBJ achieved for our nation. Many years ago, in college, I got sick with food poisoning. The illness damaged nerves in my gut and I have struggled ever since with debilitating stomach issues. Overnight my life changed. Literally.
I had private medical insurance through my father, but we couldn’t make the bills with the insurance. The copays, fees and worse broke me financially. I had trouble working due to my illness. I filed for disability, and after a two year battle, got Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Without this I do not know what would have happened to me; the progressive agenda saved me.
Overnight I, like many, went from middle class to poor. I have been in food stamp lines many times. You see SSI gives me little to live on, say $700 a month. Food stamps are essential so I had to get them. Not a day goes by when I do not think of those poor people waiting around the block for food stamps. There is no shame in being poor. No shame in having become so ill you need the government to help you. Yet leaders in both parties attack the vulnerable.
Our pols today are a joke. DC is a joke. Truly. Their church now is austerity. The cuts Obama and the GOP have agreed to so far have dashed hopes in my life and those of so many others. Obama agreed to massive HUD cuts. The waiting list now to get a Section 8 voucher is even longer than before. The list has been CLOSED for 3 years here. Now I cannot apply until 2014. So all those thousands in need of a place to live must wait because of the budget cuts. Our government has never given enough to help those in need, but this is beyond the pale.
No other western nation makes the disabled impoverished like we do. None. I already get so very little to live on, cannot get a voucher to pay for a apartment due to the Obama/GOP cuts, while other programs are being demolished here in Texas and elsewhere.
Too many people do not seem to get how essential Medicaid and Sect. 8 is to millions of lives. Medicaid seems expendable to many I know. Medicaid is already almost worthless. If you need a specialist good luck. It pays doctors so badly it’s not hard not to imagine people dying of lack of care; but it pays hospital and basic primary care. And yet many Dems and Republicans are eager to carve away this program. The same goes for HUD and Sect. 8. Making people in need of housing wait a decade to get a voucher is criminal. Yet pols hack away.
Cuts of a billion here and there. It sounds all so painless in the abstract. But these cuts crush lives. Crush dreams. Crush dignity. The Church of Austerity must be destroyed.
Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose column “Queer Talk” appears regularly on Saturdays, and occasionally on other days of the week.
This QT column could also be called, “I’m Right, and you’re Left out,” since it’s about more than marriage. Just like DADT is about more than servicemembers, DOMA is about more than couples who want to get legally married. ENDA is about more than civil rights in the work place. It’s all connected, all the bits and pieces, of varying sizes and significance, in the long struggle toward equality. And although Obama’s choices regarding LGBT equality are obviously significant, all of this, including marriage, is about much more than Obama. He has both helped and hindered. On marriage in particular, a Democratic president to the Right of popular opinion, and of some Republicans, basing his argument on states’ rights, isn’t subtle or clever. Whatever he’s thinking, the states’ rights argument means, in practice, that if you’re LGBT (among other groups), states are just as free to discriminate against you as they are to provide civil rights.
Pam Spaulding, at Houseblend, recently wrote:
… the states have varying laws on the books related to marriage, but what we have going on can and should be addressed by this President – we have states embracing equality, while other states are enshrining bigotry into their state constitutions against a class of citizens at the ballot box.
He knows this is wrong; and it will give comfort to our foes who will quote the President with glee in their campaigns to pass marriage amendments.
For those of us in states facing institutionalized oppression, the perspective of ‘progress’ looks very different when you are sitting where further battles loom, as opposed to areas where equality is blooming. There is thinking that exists in abundance in the LGBT community (usually couched in the legal abstract) that helps generates the willingness to see ‘throw away states’ – where LGBTs will suffer – as mere speed bumps on the way to equality.
For many of us already in “throw away states,” the battle is to undo the damage already done. I rejoiced at the big marriage win in New York, but for those of us in the 29 states with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to “one man, one woman,” and the 12 states with laws doing the same thing, listening to Obama extol the right of state legislatures, and the right of a majority of citizens to vote on the rights of a minority, is not encouraging.
And just to be clear, these mini-DOMAs and state constitutional amendments are not restricted to “the South.” Via the Human Rights Campaign, states with constitutional amendments:
Alabama (2006), Alaska (1998), Arizona (2008), Arkansas (2004), California (2008), Colorado, Florida (2008), Georgia (2004), Kansas (2005), Idaho (2006), Kentucky (2004), Louisiana (2004), Michigan (2004), Mississippi (2004), Missouri (2004), Montana(2004), Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), North Dakota (2004), Ohio (2004), Oklahoma (2004),Oregon (2004), South Carolina (2006), South Dakota (2006), Tennessee (2006), Texas (2005), Utah (2004), Virginia(2006) and Wisconsin (2006).
States with laws: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
And, there are 18 states “where the law or amendment has language that does, or may, affect other legal relationships, such as civil unions or domestic partnership. … : Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.”
DOMA, of course, was signed into law by Bill Clinton. It’s been under attack in the courts fairly consistently since. Via the NYTimes:
Last year, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the law unconstitutional as it applied to same-sex couples for issues like inheritance taxes and federal health and pension benefits. President Obama has expressed his opposition to DOMA, and in February the Justice Department announced that it would not defend it in court …
The comments above, from Spaulding, introduced an article by regular guest contributor Rev. Irene Monroe, “Obama harkens backs to slavery with ‘states’ rights’ for same-sex marriage.”
The fight for marriage equality in the U.S. is similar to my ancestors’ fight for freedom. In their day, before the Civil War in 1861, the U.S. consisted of nineteen free states and fifteen slave states….
As LGBTQ Americans, we’re not in slavery, but we certainly will be in a civil war as each state battle this issue. Whereas President Lincoln acted on behalf of my ancestor’s civil rights, we need to call on Obama to move on ours.
‘The President has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat,’ said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. ‘This states’ rights argument is a separate but equal argument.’ …
While our President states his opinion is still ‘evolving’ on this issue, he needs to know that we LGBTQ Americans and our families want to sample what he and Michelle and every heterosexual married couple take for granted – marriage, not marriage-lite.
Of course, Democratic-lite Electeds are part of the problem. Comparatively speaking, an “evolving” president is better than other alternatives. For an admittedly extreme contrast, Michele Bachmann said, in 2004, that “in the gay marriage issue, legalizing a new status – if you will, redefining in a sense what it is to be man, woman, what it is to be human … ” Bachmann is defining not just marriage, but what it means to be “human.”
She doesn’t seem to have evolved since then. On Thursday of this week, she was, according to The Advocate, “first in line to sign a new pledge affirming her belief that gay men are a public health risk, that gay parents are inferior to straight parents, and that homosexuality is a choice.”
By such comparisons, evolving can sound, if not good, at least better. But neither “better” nor “good” is equal. Ultimately, that’s the only standard by which Electeds should be measured. For that matter, it’s a standard for “we the people,” too.
Morning, news junkies.
This week’s Hillary pic(s) are actually from last Saturday, but came out after I wrote up my July 2nd post, so enjoy: Click here to see the great slideshow of Hillary and Trini pics at Still4Hill’s place.
Before I go on, a moment of silence for First Lady Betty Ford who died yesterday at age 93. Carl Anthony has an appropriate tribute to Betty up… The Revolutionary Moment of First Lady Betty Ford : Her October 1975 Speech still Makes History:
In this excerpt of that now largely-forgotten speech, Mrs. Ford delivered her crisp yet eloquent case for equal rights. As an example of the increasingly political and social importance of First Ladies to the nation, it ranks with two other revolutionary speeches – those of Eleanor Roosevelt at the United Nations in outlining the Declaration of Human Rights, a document she helped draft, and of Hillary Clinton in Beijing at the U.N. Conference on Women.
If you click on one link from this post today, make it the following one… Anna Sale/WNYC: Gillibrand’s Bipartisan Partisan Pitch to Women. It’s a very extensive and informative piece, and while there’s a whole bunch I could excerpt and tease, you really ought to just read the entire thing. I do love these Gloria Steinem quotes on Gillibrand from the article though:
Gloria Steinem herself called Gillibrand “our senator and our future” at the May dinner honoring Gillibrand for her defense of abortion rights.
“Like Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisolm, she doesn’t hold her finger to the wind. She is the wind,” Steinem said.
Since NASA launched its last space shuttle mission yesterday, I wanted to link to a few items about the contribution made by women to the shuttle program:
Even women who’d hit the glass ceiling again and again, like astrophysicist and space scientist Candy Torres, kept their eyes on the prize. As one of the first women to work in aerospace, Torres’ story as told to CNN reminds us of the institutionalized sexism that once prvailed and how inroads made Ride and others enabled women to walk an easier path in their pursuit of a career in space science.
This is priceless.
What a human interest story. How defining this all seems to me.
The story comes from TPM, a must read:
[...] The pomp and circumstance surrounding the waiter’s presentation, uncorking and decanting of the pricey Pinot Noir caught the attention of another diner who had already recognized Ryan sitting with two other men nearby.
Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan’s table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same pricetag.
Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle. She quickly did the math and figured out that the $700 in wine the trio consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage.
“We were just stunned,” said Feinberg, who e-mailed TPM about her encounter later the same evening. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.” …
I’m a long time wine lover, though by no means a connoisseur, and have enjoyed fine wine. There’s just something distasteful to me about reading of the excesses of a Republican deficit hawk whose idea of a budget is to make the good life more difficult for people.
Via The Army Times:
The Pentagon has ordered a halt to all separations of gay troops under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and will begin accepting applications from prospective recruits who identify themselves as homosexuals.
The moratorium issued Friday came after a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court in California ordering the Defense Department to immediately stop enforcing the law. The court said the law is unconstitutional because it treats gay Americans differently under the law.
Training and preparation for formal repeal will continue. That formal repeal will come “60 days after the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs ‘certify’ that it will not adversely impact military readiness.” Before leaving the Defense Secretary position, “Gates said he expected certification to occur in late July or early August.”
It remains unclear whether the Pentagon will seek to appeal Wednesday’s court ruling, which would have to go to the Supreme Court, Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. David Lapan said Friday.
Servicemember Legal Defense Network issued a statement, including:
SLDN welcomes this temporary suspension of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ discharges in the wake of this week’s court decision, but we urge the Pentagon to go further by suspending all investigations of service members that are currently ongoing, and confirm that the Department of Defense and Department of Justice are not preparing to appeal the court’s ruling. It’s imperative for service members, gay and straight, who have been living with ambiguity for far too long as this process has languished unnecessarily. The time for clarity and finality is long overdue.
Today’s announcement is obviously good news. But it does make me wonder, yet again, if there aren’t some people working (at least they’d have a job) just to invent ways to make this process as complicated, and in some significant ways, as silly, as this one has been.
“I think we should always listen to Bill Clinton about everything. And so, if that’s his view then that should be the rule of law.” – John Heilemann on “Morning Joe”
This belongs as a bookend to Chris Matthews’ thrill up his leg moment and is equally obsequiesce. With “journalism” like this is it any wonder that presidents come to believe they can walk on water? I say this as someone who respects, even reveres, parts of what Clinton accomplished in the ’90s (I have long believed we should go back to Clinton era tax rates), but especially his unparalleled gift to communicate his message.
But seriously? Why is John Heilemann getting away with this crap?
Take this from the National Journal, which is worth the read:
“Our risk is that we’ll be so averse to any changes in the entitlement programs that we’ll continue to spend … too much money on today, so we don’t have enough money [to invest] for tomorrow,” he said. – Clinton: What Went Wrong With the Economy After I Left?
William Jefferson Clinton is the best in the political business, but let’s not forget he’s a corporate DLC Dem, from which Barack Obama’s cut. It’s just one reason Obama disavowed him in the ’08 primaries. Looking in the mirror at what you are when you’re hawking the opposite even made him nauseous.
As for Obama exalting Ronald Reagan instead of Clinton, Reagan raised taxes 11 times against his party’s philosophy, which is so jarring to today’s Republicans they simply write it out of history.
Obama isn’t close to the political skills, dexterity and talent of either Reagan or Clinton, he’s a mirage.
Bill Clinton’s former former Third Way loves Obama’s “deal of the century.”
“Third Way has long argued that entitlement reform should be part of the solution to America’s deficit challenge. Not only will it put us back on a sustainable fiscal path, reform will save and strengthen our social safety net. We applaud the President’s willingness to do the right thing and lay hands on the “third rail” of American politics.
Some on the left will attack the President for putting Social Security and Medicare fixes on the table, but without action these programs will eventually crowd out our ability to invest in America’s future and force us to default on our promise to provide for tomorrow’s seniors. Postponing reform indefinitely is not an option, and to delay is not progressive.
The President is taking a step vital to any negotiation – offering a reasonable path to compromise on priorities dear to him. It’s time for Republicans to follow suit by abandoning their unreasonable opposition to closing tax loopholes.”
Obama’s Republicanism is right of Clinton’s Third Way crap and even less effective, but neither did or is now doing anything for the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton made deals as he was being hounded toward impeachment (though his Wall Street coziness was voluntary), while Obama made deals he didn’t have to after coming into office with the entire world slobbering over his wondrousness.
Obama is a wannabe Clinton, just with less talent, no economic game and absolutely zero gifts to reach into people’s hearts with or without the teleprompter rolling. Instead of feeling people’s pain, Obama has become their pain.
President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate. – Top Obama adviser says unemployment won’t be key in 2012
King David has spoken. Oh, am I relieved. It’s good to know people won’t vote on the unemployment rate, even though a hell of a lot of voters are worried about their own economic future, as Pres. Obama screws around with his new best friend, Austerity.
David Plouffe is under the delusion that Barack Obama is still perceived as the same politician who ran in 2008. The man is not stupid, so he’s either in deep denial, having a political breakdown looking at the lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama, or he’s speaking gibberish while dreaming about what was versus what is today.
Jared Bernstein on Jobs numbers:
The June jobs report reveals a much more serious job creation problem in this country than most policy makers realized. Over the past two months, job creation has essentially ground to a halt, with 25,000 jobs added in May and 18,000 in June. The unemployment rate, now 9.2%, is climbing.
On the whole, this is one of the most negative employment reports since the recovery began. It indicates that the economy has made no progress whatsoever in re-employing the people who lost their jobs in the downturn. Even more discouraging is the fact that there is no reason to expect anything to change for the better any time soon. The pace of job loss in the public sector is likely to accelerate, with no evidence of an offsetting pickup in the private sector.
Former Pres. Bill Clinton on this insanity and the threats Britain could face because of their austerity craze:
Spending cuts and tax rises to rein in a nation’s finances should be postponed until its economy is “clearly recovering” because these measures dampen growth, he argued.
“The UK’s finding this out now,” he said. “They adopted this big austerity budget and there’s a good chance that economic activity will go down so much that tax revenues will be reduced even more than spending is cut and their deficit will increase.”
With Pres. Obama embracing Republican austerity at the expense of everything else, there’s no reason to believe, to trust or to hope anything is going to get better before it gets worse.
David Plouffe’s pronouncements about how people will vote is predicated on something that no longer exists. The belief in Barack Obama’s talents to lead our nation, which has been proven wrong, deadly, deadly wrong.
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are rather than taking steps to reduce the budget deficit (by 60% vs. 32%). – Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
This is starting early, so it’s time to revisit the facts.
When I came out for Hillary Clinton in July 2007, I was told by Obama loyalists I’d never recover from the investigative coverage I gave candidate Barack Obama, while others of that ilk tried everything to discredit me through lies.
On the day Clinton conceded, I immediately backed Obama. This infuriated many of Hillary’s fans, which resulted in the same thing Obama’s fan boys did in reverse, add in the oh, so cruel de-linking from dozens of blogs where I was considered a “traitor,” which I still hear to this day.
Many of these same people became “pumas,” a group I disavowed and fought against from the start, including in every media forum where I was asked, on cable networks across the spectrum. It was obvious “puma” was going to try to hurt Barack Obama’s candidacy, which also meant hurting Hillary, so I twisted the arm of a blogger to guest post here until the Democratic convention, with a few of her posts here, here, here, here.
Liberalism means something to me and anyone trying to ignore it or destroy it deserves what he or she gets. That my analysis is solid infuriates many Obama loyalists, but the foundation of my criticisms directed toward Pres. Obama is that he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Democratic principles, priorities or policies. The noise from fan boys and girls in my direction is because they can’t take the truth.
The other day I began a column with the following sentence: “If you want one reason why Pres. Obama doesn’t deserve reelection this is it.”
That was before the Washington Post broke the story that had been floating for weeks and weeks, which is that Obama was going to serve up the New Deal for real, something I’d warned about in November 2007. I could broaden the economic criticism to include matters of war and more war, because our Nobel Prize-winning President has created no peace, with his Bushesque stubbornness on Afghanistan proving the point, along with his illegal military action in Libya.
On the other side, after the post went up, more than one person suggested that Sarah Palin is the alternative! It’s puma, circa 2012, and just as delusional. Palin’s fans are the bookend on the Right to Obama fans, both sides infatuated with their One, with “pumas” part of this problem as well.
The notion that I’d ever vote for anyone like Palin who believes freedom is just for men is ludicrous, though it would be great fun to see Sarah freak out the current Republican field by running. But with Michele Bachmann tearing up Iowa, what’s the point of Palin? Her fans will provide an answer for that question, I’m sure.
What’s ensued under Pres. Obama’s watch has been deplorable, but nothing surprising to me, which amounts to a sell out of Democratic Party ideals for one man and his administration. What he’s done to the Democratic brand is incalculable, starting with moving the debate far right, which has set up Republicans in a dream scenario.
That is, if the American people didn’t have their say, too. Read the latest in the Pew Poll to see just how badly Pres. Obama has handled the public’s trust, which he no longer deserves.
Anyone who thinks I am obligated to aid Pres. Obama’s reelection because I’m a liberal is sadly mistaken. I’m under one obligation and that is to tell the truth as I see it and provide political analysis that, at its best, hopefully helps you get clarity on your own thoughts.
Barack Obama came into office with the people, the press and the world at his feet. What he’s done with the power he had in 2008 is nothing short of political malpractice, with his lack of leadership on the debt ceiling debate not only a travesty, but an embarrassment for Democrats and a horror for voters who put their trust in Obama’s hands.
There’s no way in hell Hillary would have been humiliated by Republicans as Obama has been in economic negotiations and there’s no flipping way she’d have served up entitlements. I don’t say this as a “fan,” but as someone who knew the record and the philosophical underpinnings of the politician I supported.
Obama loyalists can’t say that about him, because he hasn’t any.
Liberalism is the shining philosophical star that can change the world, set women free, marginalize misogynistic religious zealots and stabilize countries and regions around the world, equalize injustice and open doors to a wondrous future. We need more of it, not less.
There is no reason to support Barack Obama for the sake of it or because he’s not as bad as whoever is on the Right, because there’s no evidence that’s true. There’s not a Republican around who could force Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts down Democratic throats and likely wouldn’t try.
Pres. Obama is not our friend. If you think he is, you’re part of the problem, too.
“She’s got hometown appeal, she’s got ideological appeal, and, I hate to say it, but she’s got a little sex appeal too.” – Vin Weber
Remember the Drudge photo and Rush doing a monologue on Hillary’s wrinkles? Remember when Harry Reid had to apologize for his comment about Sen. Gillibrand? Where would Michele Bachmann be if she was ugly? Just look at her opening ad in Iowa to see how she trades on style, which for politicians matters.
There’s a reason Rep. Bachmann all of a sudden showed up with a great new look when Sarah Palin came to town one day last April and it wasn’t because “sex appeal” is unimportant. John McCain would never have picked Palin if she wasn’t a knock out. It’s her strongest attribute. She knows it and uses it, as she should.
Good looking male politicians have traded on their looks to get into office for over a century. Do you think John Ensign would have had a prayer if he was ugly? The man’s an idiot, which he eventually proved.
The Bachmann “sex appeal” brouhaha is nothing.
Compare it to the treatment Elizabeth Warren is getting, which is reminiscent of what Hillary received from The New Republic.
Via Politico, with Jason Linkins adding a comparison to a TIME cover of Rubin, Summers and Greenspan.
Elizabeth Warren’s prowess is such a threat that a major biz mag targets her reputation to keep her from impacting their world.
The only thing worse, evidently, than being a “bureaucrat” is being a “liberal.”
When a smart, tough, aggressive woman is smeared it means the boys’ club establishment is scared of her.
“The story overshoots the runway,” said a senior administration official. “The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”
“While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit,” the official added, “it does need to be strengthened.”
Ah, strengthened, ri-ight.
Then a statement from Jay Carney:
“There is no news here,” Carney said. “The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”
Maybe the Tea Party will save Democrats from their feckless “leader.” Just maybe they’ll be stupid enough to stiff Pres. Obama on the “deal of the century” he’s offering.
Go Eric Cantor, come on, baby, be your bad self and stiff the President. You know you want to.
…or just maybe, maybe, Nancy Pelosi will finally make up for her horrendous cave-in to the Catholic Church during health care, to draw a line where any principled Democrat would.
[... It’s safe to say at this point that the White House is starting to get the credit it wants for working hard to find a compromise even as Republicans work hard to resist one. But that’s not a triumph of messaging. It is, if anything, an understatement based on the White House’s willingness to give congressional Republicans a much more lopsided deal than Reagan, Bush or Clinton presided over. Republicans might be fools for passing on it, but if and when they finally say “yes,” a lot of Democrats are going to be wondering whether the Democrats were suckers for offering it. - Ezra Klein
It’s not over until the Tea Party squeals.
Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose column “Queer Talk” appears regularly on Saturdays, and occasionally on other days of the week.
Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the permanent injunction against enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The injunction was originally awarded last September by Judge Virginia Phillips in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.
Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans, said in response to today’s ruling:
This ruling vindicates the right of openly gay and lesbian individuals to enlist or serve in our armed forces. We have been saying all along that the government had no legal basis for appealing Judge Phillips’s decision and injunction. The court’s ruling today finds that the government especially had no basis for putting that injunction on hold so that it could continue to investigate and discharge patriotic service members merely for their sexual orientation.
Servicemembers United also issued a statement.
‘With the wait for certification dragging out beyond a reasonable time frame, the Court has once again stepped in to require the Pentagon to stop enforcing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and this time it very well may be for good,’ said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole veteran plaintiff on the case. ‘I am proud to have worked personally worked with Log Cabin on this case for more than five years now and to have represented the gay military community as the sole named veteran on this lawsuit. Despite the criticisms and years of waiting, this case has yet again successfully eviscerated this outdated, harmful, and discriminatory law.’
Caution is still being advised, however. Servicemember United’s Nicholson added:
Servicemembers should still remain extremely cautious with information regarding their sexual orientation for the time being. The issue remains in a state of flux, although guarded optimism is certainly warranted.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis included the “Still At Risk” warning with his statement today.
It’s the hope of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that this favorable ruling will not be challenged by the Defense Department. In fact, this whole matter could have been avoided had we had certification back in the spring. It’s time to get on with that important certification, end the DADT confusion for all service members, and put a final end to this misguided policy.
That was followed by:
STILL AT RISK: Despite the President signing the bill authorizing repeal of DADT, it is still unsafe for service members to come out until 60 days after certification by President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen.
Clearly the end is near. Obama recently said it was a matter of weeks, not months. And that was prior to this ruling.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney raised $18.25 million over the past three months, a sum likely to put him head and shoulders above his rivals for the 2012 Republican nomination in the dash for cash. Romney’s fundraising dwarfs that of his Republican opponents. Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) raised $4.5 million between April 1 and June 30, while former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty collected $4.2 million. … – Chris Cilizza
Michele Bachmann has decided to report her latest quarter fundraising on July 15th.
In another sign of Romney’s begrudging support for the nomination, his lead in New Hampshire over now second place Michele Bachmann is 35% to her 12%, with the next contender Ron Paul at 7%, tied with un-announced failed ’08 nominee Rudy Giuliani.
If you want one reason why Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection this is it.
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. – The Mother of All No-Brainers
The bookend to David Brooks is Frank Rich, who evidently has finally awakened to the actual Barack Obama, 3 years too late. This was after appalling political analysis that should not only have gotten him laughed out of the opinion racket, but rendered his views worthless. Rich preferred to play games in the primaries rather than learn, then help readers understand Barack Obama’s political philosophy:
But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.
One of the people who underestimated Barack Obama was Frank Rich, but not in the manner he originally meant. It’s because he was too besotted to identify candidate Obama’s squishy Republicanism.
Mr. Rich also predicted a Democratic “civil war” if Hillary didn’t cool it, though even Rachel Maddow did this, but Rich went several ugly steps further, to make his points:
A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.
The “suicide for the party” is indeed happening, just a lot later and through the very politician Mr. Rich exalted.
Rich could have looked at Obama’s Illinois record, his statements about being non-ideological, about being more of a mediator between two opposing views, but he chose fan politics instead, ignorantly blinded by what the outcome could eventually be.
Paul Krugman laid out the economics for Rich and his ilk, but there were many clues, the most important coming from candidate Obama himself:
“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama, 5.14.07 (on ABC’s “This Week”)
Pres. Obama adopting the Republican economic model has set the Democratic Party back, how far and for how long it’s hard to tell.
Obama’s position is now where Republicans have placed the new center, which will dog any Democratic candidate and president who believes progressive philosophy is not only more sound, but imperative to save the middle class.
Any Democrat not starting by offering tax cuts and even targeting the safety net will now be considered “extreme” or “far left” by the new center, you know, because Barack Obama did it. Progressive politics then becomes a harder sell. Where that leaves the “professional Left” is anyone’s guess, but it’s nowhere good.
That is unless Obama’s economic Republicanism is abandoned wholesale, which is unlikely when you look at the behavior of elite Democrats today, politicians who don’t understand that by “winning” the Democratic Party is actually losing their identity. Though there are some signs of life in small quarters of Congress, with a few Democrats recognizing that the small differences that used to exist between the parties, Pres. Obama has obliterated, not only on economics, but including on matters of war and peace.
There’s something even more chilling about Pres. Obama’s economic Republicanism. If he’s doing this now, what will he do if he’s reelected, facing no other elections in his future, able to carve the path as he sees it?
It’s not Republicans who should start worrying about Obama’s reelection, it’s Democrats.
