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 | September, 2011

‘In the News’ Diaries Spotlight

By on 16 September 2011

The first one is from Sunlight:

Census Bureau — and Procter & Gamble — “Get” the Persistently Weak Economy, but Obama Doesn’t, by Sunlight

This past Tuesday the 12th the Census Bureau issued a disquieting report on the nations economic well-being, or lack thereof. Some key findings

As of 2010, median “real” (ie., inflation adjusted) income for families sat at 1996 levels
Incredibly, real income for male workers sits at 1973 levels, though income for women is rising to a higher percentage of that earned by men than previously
2.6 million more people fell below the poverty line in 2010 than in 2009
The New York Times article on this survey can be found here.

It just so happened that today The Wall Street Journal (and Yahoo Finance) also carried videos describing Procter & Gamble’s strategy for adjusting to the prolonged economic weakness we are dealing with. Through most of its history P&G has been known for high-margin household products, and managing to sell at least some of them into, get this, 98% of US households. Now P&G has actually adopted what it calls an “hourglass” marketing strategy. To complement its high-end products, P&G has launched low-priced entries in key categories such as dish soap and laundry detergent, with an eye to selling them in dollar stores. P&G will now have a whole set of offering for lower income consumers (the bottom bulge in the hourglass) in addition to its venerable brand names that have always been marketed to those with middle class (and more) comfort.

Translation: this premier manufacturer of consumer packaged goods, which boasts the world’s largest ad budget, has decided that the problems bedeviling many Americans, aren’t going away any time soon. You don’t launch whole new product lines if you expect their markets (in this case the downwardly mobile former middle class) to disappear. P&G is going after the dollar store shoppers because it has to.

Taken together these items — coincidentally hitting the media on the same news day — show just how wrong Obama’s economic team have been in assuming that the recession was the product of a normal, garden variety economic cycle. Both the original stimulus plan and the current edition now sent to Congress are once again shown to be too little, too late. And in these circumstances he continues to advocate slashing what’s left of the social safety net. The mind boggles.

Cujo359 does a write-up of NY9 that’s a good read.

Ramsgate points to a story on the upcoming Palestinian vote for statehood in the U.N. Politico has several op-eds and other articles on this upcoming challenge for Pres. Obama, with this piece worth a read.

Everyone is welcome to post an “In the News” diary. I may not always comment, but I read them all. So appreciate everyone who takes the time to write.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Abbas: ‘We need to have full membership at the U.N.’

By on 16 September 2011

It’s a go.

Just when you thought Pres. Obama’s challenges couldn’t get any rougher. The Times calls this decision unsurprising, but “stinging.”

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey called recognizing a Palestinian state “not an option, it is an obligation.”

PM Netanyahu said simply, “Peace will not be achieved by a unilateral approach to the United Nations.”

Next week’s going to be something.

more at Memeorandum

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

The Sane Wing of the Republican Tea Party Weighs In

By on 16 September 2011

Tom Ridge to endorse Jon Huntsman.

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman will announce the endorsement of former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Gov. Tom Ridge Friday in an event at St. Anselm College in Goffstown.

If Rick “ponzi” Perry continues his rise, knocking off Mitt Romney, I must concur with Chuck Todd that an independent challenge might be the next thing to happen, no matter how improbably impossible the task.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Pres. Obama, the anti-LBJ

By on 16 September 2011

“Rahm couldn’t have picked a better successor,” a former Senate aide who worked closely with Emanuel told The Huffington Post. “Daley has … managed to make people miss [him].” – Bill Daley Leaves Some Democrats Longing For Rahm Emanuel

Oh, the irony.

Obamaworld and Democrats are looking for a scapegoat. It was all a matter of time.

Lyndon Baines Johnson understood a couple of things about which Team Obama is positively clueless. First, it’s the importance of fear over love, which brings with it leverage. Secondly, relationships are destiny in Washington, particularly when dealing with Congress.

MR. CARNEY: Congress doesn’t need a phone call from the President to vote on legislation. That’s a myth. … – White House briefing, 9.15.11

Unfortunately, Obama and company think business is more important than the Legislative Branch of government, so, actually, Bill Daley is perfect for the President’s persona and leadership clubfootedness, which helped lead to the economic disaster we’re all living.

It looks like Ron Suskind has put this picture firmly into focus in his new book:

The book, by Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, quotes White House documents that say Mr. Obama’s decisions were routinely “re-litigated” by the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers. Some decisions, including one to overhaul the debt-ridden Citibank, were carried out sluggishly or not at all by a resistant Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, according to the book.

Pres. Obama and his loyalists have always believed he would be enough, the magic portion of the political potion that would make Washington miraculously morph into a presidential machine to do his bidding.

Barack Obama is finding out that he is not a world unto himself.

I believe it was Peter Daou who wrote that the progressive movement, the base, the “professional Left,” whatever you want to call this contingent, was turning out to be the canary in the coal mine. However, the traditional media wrote off “far Left bloggers” as irrelevant for a very long time, as did almost always obnoxious Obama loyalists. But with the rumbling now coming from Democratic circles far and wide, from congressional quarters to fundraising big shots, all of a sudden the warnings from progressives are sounding quite prescient.

John Heilemann made mention of this fact on “Morning Joe” this week, but with a dismissive air, implying that when it came from mere bloggers, more importantly known as the progressive new media, it was one thing, but now that insider Dems are bellyaching to the New York Times, look out. Mr. Heilemann was not the only one to dismiss the political canary in the Obama’s reelection coal mine.

David Axelrod can spin this any way he wants.

Stories about Bill Daley’s dismal stewardship will be written.

But pining for Rahmbo? Incredible.

The problem with this storyline is told through the same old tale from so long ago. The fish always rots from the head.

Segue to the White House briefing yesterday with Jay Carney, which tells the rest of this sorry tale.

Q Okay. And then, lastly, on the jobs plan, the Speaker’s office says there has not been any outreach to them, even though — from the White House on the jobs bill, even though last week they requested a meeting. Is that true? And, if so, why hasn’t there been?

MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, the President spoke a week ago. There will be ample time going forward for continued consultations with leadership and rank-and-file members of Congress as Congress takes up the American Jobs Act and hopefully passes it, so that we can do the things we need to do to grow the economy and create jobs. I don’t have any specific –

Q He said “pass this bill now” more than a hundred times in the last week –

MR. CARNEY: Yes. Well, that’s because it’s so urgent. He is reflecting –

Q Not urgent enough to call the Speaker, though.

MR. CARNEY: He is reflecting the urgency that the American people feel. And there will be, I’m sure, conversations between the White House and the leadership about this as we progress. But what we have — what you know about how Congress works and how Washington works is you need to keep people focused on the task at hand — because there’s so many other issues that can distract attention from the main, which, in this case, are the things we need to do to grow the economy and create jobs. And I’m sure the President will be, and members of his staff will be engaged very directly with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate as this process moves forward.

Q Don’t you think he should call the Speaker before he reaches, say, 200?

MR. CARNEY: I didn’t know you were working for the Speaker on his scheduling. The fact is — he will talk to the Speaker, but it is — the President has put forward a detailed piece of legislation. The elements of that plan are very clear. The Congress can and should act on it very quickly. It’s not complicated. The proposals are very simple. And they reflect — they are the kinds of proposals that have gained bipartisan support in the past. So it’s not –

Q I understand — this is your thing now that when a reporter asks a question you impugn whether or not they have a political motive. But if the President –

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, no, no. And I apologize. I simply meant –

Q The President goes out there — the President goes out there and says 100 times, “Pass this bill.” I’m asking has he called the man in charge of passing the bill in the House? It seems like a reasonable question –

MR. CARNEY: The President –

Q — and not one that is Republican-motivated.

MR. CARNEY: Jake, the President spoke with the Speaker on the day that he delivered his speech. I’m sure they will be speaking many times in the coming weeks and months about this and many other issues. It doesn’t –

Q But he doesn’t want it passed in weeks and months. He wants it passed now.

MR. CARNEY: He does. And it doesn’t require –

Q And he still hasn’t called the Speaker.

MR. CARNEY: Congress doesn’t need a phone call from the President to vote on legislation. That’s a myth. …

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Liberally Independent: Two Parties, Too Few Choices, Part VIII

By on 16 September 2011

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

Electoral reforms of the Right kind

This series of posts began with “Grading the Electoral College”. Given the recent news, via Memeorandum, “Pennsylvania GOP Electoral proposals”, it seemed like a good time to revisit that focus. The Electoral College is a key consideration when thinking about changes to our election and campaign structures and systems, and to our political parties. What the GOP in Pennsylvania is doing, among other things, is another example of the willingness of the Right to take bold steps. This particular step is, in my opinion, purely partisan, and not even remotely related to fair election reform, but maybe it will get the attention of some on the Left, Right and in the Center who are actually interested in such fairness. To break out of the constraints of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy includes, for me, eliminating the Electoral College.

As I did in the June post, so again I’m using the resources of Fair Vote, where you can find a great deal of information about election reform, including the National Popular Vote Plan Legislation. From my earlier post, according to Fair Vote the NVP Plan (all emphasis mine)

Redistricting Reform/ Alternatives to Winner-Take-All: FairVote challenges our nation’s reliance upon winner-take-all elections and single member districts for Congressional and most state legislative elections. We also should have national standards to prevent partisan gerrymandering and give states and localities the right to use proportional voting methods. …

With that in mind, let’s look at what the GOP is proposing in Pennsylvania.

In Mother Jones, Nick Baumann writes “The GOP’s Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012″.

Under the (Pennsylvania) Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top Republicans in both houses of the state’s legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this (winner take all) system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state’s two senators—would go to the statewide winner.) …

This, obviously, isn’t reform aimed at fair vote counts, but at using the fact that the GOP currently controls congressional redistricting, and with their plan, could take gerrymandering into the Electoral College.

David Dayen, writing at Fire Dog Lake does a good job of comparing these efforts with the National Fair Vote Plan.

Consider that this proposal is somewhat similar, though not entirely, to the National Popular Vote compact which several states have passed. Under that law, states would give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The catch is that the NPV would only go into effect if enough states signed on equaling 270 votes, or enough to mean that the national popular vote would determine the winner of the Presidential election. I believe in the NPV to rid ourselves of this ridiculous and distorting Electoral College system. The apportionment by Congressional district doesn’t remedy that: it doesn’t account for wide disparities in voting between Congressional districts (a district where a Democratic Presidential candidate wins by 40 points and a district where a Republican wins by 2 points would cancel each other out, for example), and small states with a lone Congressional district would still give a winner-take-all to their preferred candidate. It would not reflect properly the vote in the nation; it would just magnify the issue of gerrymandering.

It seems someone will always come along to take a good idea and twist it into a self-serving one. The Two Party Front exists, and both sides want to maintain the status quo in terms of serving the Oligarchy, but at the same time, both sides want the top status position in the DC show. The GOP really wants Obama to be a one termer, and this manipulation of “popular voting” appears to be a tactic toward that end.

Writing at Hullabaloo, David Atkins considers the potential repercussions of this version of “Changing the Rules”:

If the GOP-controlled ‘blue states’ do this, and if President Obama wins the popular vote by a few million votes and would have won the election under the current rules but ‘loses’ to Rick Perry under the GOP rules, I can practically guarantee mass civil disobedience.

Maybe. Or maybe there would be a loud but relatively brief out-cry – kind of like the “hanging chads” and “Supreme Court decides the presidency” loud but brief out-cry – and then we’d sink back into “there’s nowhere else to go” apathy.

Not everyone is apathetic, of course. As I’ve been writing, there are actually a lot of things going on. One of those is happening this Saturday, September 17. Via Occupy Wall Street:

What will happen this Saturday when thousands of us descend on Lower Manhattan and start walking towards Wall Street? If the police try to stop us, how will we respond? …

If the police block us temporarily from occupying Wall Street, then let’s turn all of lower Manhattan into our Tahrir Square.

I have no idea how successful this will be, but cheers to people who take peaceful actions toward challenging the reality created, imposed and maintained by the few who benefit from it. And jeers to those who selfishly and hypocritically look for ways to make a bad system even worse.

Posts in this series:

Grading the Electoral College
Two Parties = Too Few Choices
Two Parties = Too Few Choices, Part II
Two Parties = Too Few Choices, Part III
Two Parties = Too Few Choices, Part IV
Two Parties = Too Few Choices, Part V
Two Parties = Too Few Choices, Part VI
Liberally Independent: Two Parties, Too Few Choices, Part VII

( Photo via WatchingFrogsBoil )

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Rick Perry on the Record

By on 15 September 2011

Gov. Rick Perry’s interview with TIME magazine.

On Social Security, he’s obviously not worried GOP primary voters think calling Social Security a “ponzi scheme” is a problem.

But you know there’s concern among the Karl Rove crowd. Team Obama is going to love this answer:

There may be someone who is an established Republican who circulates in the cocktail circuit that would find some of my rhetoric to be inflammatory or what have you, but I’m really talking to the American citizen out there. I think American citizens are just tired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing around important issues. They want a decisive leader. I’m comfortable that the rhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on. Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme has been used for years. I don’t think people should be surprised that terminology would be used.

No one gets confused about the point I was making, that we have a system that is now broken. We need to make sure that those on Social Security today — and those approaching it — know without a doubt it will be in place. It will not go away. We’ll have a transitional period for those in mid-career as they’re planning for their retirement. And our young people should be given some options. I don’t know what all of those options need to be yet, but they know instinctively that the program that is there today is not going to be there for them unless there are changes made.

I don’t get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken. If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it’s a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it’s broken –they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation. Don’t try to scare the senior citizens and those who are on Social Security that it’s somehow going to go away with the mean, old heartless Republican.

How would you change Social Security? Would you consider private accounts or raising the retirement age?

We are having a national discussion now about a lot of different options: raising the [retirement] age, doing it in a structured way for the younger worker, some options from the standpoint of private accounts — all of those ought to be on the table. The idea that we’re going to write a Social Security reform plan today is a bit of a stretch from my perspective. I have accomplished one of the things that I wanted to do by talking about it. Americans are paying attention.

On Afghanistan:

What should happen next in Afghanistan?

I think we need to try to move our men and women home as soon as we can. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. And we’ve got to continually reassess our objectives. We need to make strategic decisions based on consultation with our military leaders on the ground, rather than just some arbitrary political promises.

Our objective should be clear. We’ve got to support the Afghan national security forces as they transition into the role of being the stable and appropriate force to sustain that country. Our overall objective has to be to serve that process and to drive out those who would do harm to our country. I think we’ve done that in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have substantial ways to continue to put the pressure on the bad guys, if you will, and I don’t think keeping a large force of United States uniform military in Afghanistan for a long period of time is particularly in the interest of the U.S., or for that matter, in Afghani interest.

But that was his answer with TIME.

Josh Rogin has a piece on Perry and Afghanistan, and this is from First Read:

In his VFW speech, He also has seemed to be for muscular interventionism — “We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home.”

But then in the very next sentence, he seemed to be against it — “I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened.”

Rick Perry is obviously confused. He’s not shown himself to be a very adept debater and he’s totally unable to think on his feet about complex issues. His discernment factor is zero.

Remind you of anyone?

Rick Perry is a 20th century man at a time when our challenges are very complex. But he’s outpacing Mitt Romney right now, because he comes off authentic, something Mitt couldn’t manage in a million years.

So far, regardless of Pres. Obama’s problems, and he’s got a lot of them, none of the Republican candidates have impressed enough for anyone to believe any of them can beat Candidate Obama, who’s a whole different beast than his weaker alter ego, Pres. Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Joblessness Rises While Obama Pitches ‘If you love me…’ Bromides

By on 15 September 2011

Fan politics was on overdrive yesterday in North Carolina. From the crowd someone yelled, “I love you.” To which Pres. Obama replied, “But if you love me you’ve got to help me pass this bill.”

This pretty much encapsulates Barack Obama’s entire political strategy from 2008 to 2012. “If you love me –insert request here–,” all predicated on fan politics over smart progressive policies. It’s always been about the love of and for Mr. Obama and the importance of supporting him no matter the cost and rarely about what his policies mean to the health of the Democratic Party, let alone the country.

A jobs and infrastructure spending bill is important, but it’s lost on no one that it didn’t become important to the White House until Pres. Obama’s own job was in jeopardy.

Unfortunately and awkwardly, yesterday’s fan club meeting is followed today by bad news that foreshadows deeper problems for Pres. Obama, which cannot be salved by stoking the OFA love machine.

From Bloomberg:

Applications for U.S. unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week to the highest level since the end of June, underscoring the risk of further weakness in the labor market.

Jobless claims climbed by 11,000 to 428,000 in the week ended Sept. 10 that included the Labor Day holiday, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News projected a drop in claims to 411,000, according to the median forecast.

[...] The cost of living in the U.S. rose more than forecast in August as consumers paid more for food, energy and housing, the Labor Department also said. The consumer-price index increased 0.4 percent after a 0.5 percent gain in July. Costs minus fuel and food rose 0.2 percent for a second month. …

“If you love me…” What a sorry state of Democratic politics this represents.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

James Carville’s Advice for Obama: ‘Panic!’

By on 15 September 2011

**UPDATED**

I don’t think Pres. Obama or his White House team are humble enough to “panic.”

But it’s the reaction of any sane person with a purpose who’s president and wants to stay around to make a difference.

From James Carville comes the “Fire. Indict. Fight.” prescription.

1. Fire somebody. No — fire a lot of people. This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad. There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm. [...]

2. Indict people. There are certain people in American finance who haven’t been held responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country. Demand from the attorney general a clear status of the state of investigation concerning these extraordinary injustices imposed upon the American people. I know Attorney General Eric Holder is a close friend of yours, but if his explanations aren’t good, fire him too. Demand answers to why no one has been indicted. [...]

3. Make a case like a Democrat. …

4. Hold fast to an explanation. …

To do any of these things Pres. Obama and the White House would have to first admit that something is wrong. That’s the problem.

In Democratic strongholds from Vermont to California — not to mention New York City, where the president helped sink his party’s nominee in Tuesday’s special election — Obama isn’t quite tanking, but he’s moving unmistakably in the wrong direction. – Barack Obama’s blue-state blues

“Mr. President, people are livid.” – James Carville

The arrogance at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has now wound around the Obama administration like a sticky web. It’s not so much a bubble at this point as an impenetrable world where Barack Obama is still the man from 2008 and all he has to do is smile and remix his word salads and all will be forgiven, even if in doing so he sells out everything the Democratic Party has stood for since F.D.R.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Elizabeth Warren: You may outspend me, but you won’t outwork me.

By on 15 September 2011

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

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

FT: Obama’s Planned Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security **UPDATED**

By on 14 September 2011

The Financial Times lays out what has been talked about for months and months, with Pres. Obama set to deliver a speech on deficit reduction on Monday.

It begins with the way the U.S. government measures inflation, which would deliver “a less generous chained-consumer price index,” to quote FT.

This decision alone would devastate elderly women, as I’ve written before.

Research from IWPR has shown the current Social Security program is a mainstay for women, and these findings have been supported by research from other organizations. Adult women are 51 percent (27 million) of all beneficiaries, including retirees, the disabled, and the survivors of deceased workers (52.5 million). Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become permanently disabled. Moreover, due to the recession many women have lost home equity and savings to failing markets. Older women—and older low income populations in general—have become more economically vulnerable and dependent on Social Security benefits. – IWPR

To give you an idea of the story framing at FT, they call Medicare and Medicaid “large government healthcare schemes for the elderly and the poor.”

As for Social Security, we just learned that according to the U.S. Census the only group not being dragged into poverty in the Obama era is senior citizens. There’s only one reason why, but our Democratic President thinks it’s time to “reform” their reality.

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade’

… Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the period from 2001 to 2007 was the first recovery on record where the level of poverty was deeper, and median income of working-age people was lower, at the end than at the beginning.

“Even before the recession hit, a lot of people were falling behind,” he said. “This may be adding to people’s sense of urgency about the economy.”

The suburban poverty rate, at 11.8 percent, appears to be the highest since 1967, Mr. Sherman added. Last year more Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty has also swallowed more children, with about 16.4 million in its ranks last year, the highest numbers since 1962, according to William Frey, senior demographer at Brookings. That means 22 percent of children are in poverty, the highest percentage since 1993.

Too bad the poor and children don’t squawk as loud as seniors, aren’t represented by AARP, but also don’t vote in as large numbers.

It’s funny how Republicans and now even Democrats are so courageous about putting the people’s safety net on the block, but these same politicians turn yellow when it comes to making real choices about military overspending, extravagance and waste, as if our military footprint around the globe isn’t a huge part of our economic problem.

But I’m reasonable.

So, I can be convinced to make serious entitlement reform, but something else has to happen first.

Get out of Iraq and begin a much more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, because Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered and broken apart; at the same time redeploy our troops from Germany and Okinawa, for starters, with an assessment begun by a committee filled with national security, military and Pentagon busting experts (like Winslow Wheeler) not currently attached to the Pentagon or having lobbyist ties, to ascertain the other countries from which we can remove U.S. forces, based on U.S. strategic interests.

Do all of these things then come to me and ask about entitlement cuts reform.

UPDATE – 9.15.11: Under pressure, today the White House pushed back on the FT story, with reports in the Washington Post and the WSJ reporting Pres. Obama will not tinker with Social Security. The problem for Pres. Obama is that he’s already floated these ideas, so whether he does it on Monday or not it’s in the political water, bolstering the Right’s passion for pulverizing the U.S. social safety net.

The last time President Obama negotiated with Republicans about overhauling the nation’s social safety set, he put several significant and politically explosive proposals on the table.

This time, it may be different.

As Obama prepares to present Congress on Monday with a detailed plan for taming the nation’s debt, a pivotal question is whether he will again propose raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and propose cuts in Social Security benefits.

Over the objections of members of his party, the president had agreed to those changes as part of an unsuccessful effort to strike a debt deal this summer with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). But Obama’s aides say the plan being released Monday would not represent that sort of compromise.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Progressive Notes: BREAKING Elizabeth Warren Enters MA Senate Race!

By on 14 September 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Warren Telling It!

Some cheerful news. Elizabeth Warren has announced she will run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Sen. Scott Brown in MA. Warren is and will be backed by key unions, progressive groups and by Democrats across America. She is a hero for speaking up for the middle class of this country and it will be one heck of a fight to make her the first female senator from the state of MA.

They are already calling the race, should Warren be the nominee, Weld-Kerry, one of the most competitive senate races in modern MA history.

Warren hopefully can help steer national conversation on the economy in a more progressive direction. She will need to push perhaps her own party leaders on austerity. If Warren(MA), Baldwin(WI) and Hirono(HI) all win their senate races we would have a real progressive caucus in the senate mad primarily of women. These are races to fight for.

Her announcement video out this morning:

Read more on Warren at her campaign site here.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Democrats and the Politics of Denial

By on 14 September 2011

On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as “awful.” “People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless,” said the source. – Twin defeats spark Democratic fears

Steve Benen writes about “context” of the special elections yesterday.

Okay, then let’s provide real context, not simply partisan sunscreen to soothe the roasted beast.

From Nate Silver comes the numbers, including Hochul’s win in upstate New York, with numbers uninterested in anyone’s need to cover Pres. Obama’s abysmal part in the shellacking or the Democratic Party’s current trajectory:

Even if you include it, however — as well as a July special election in California, where Democrats won but by an underwhelming margin — Republicans have overperformed the P.V.I. baseline by an average of 7 percentage points across the four races. That squares with what we saw in 2010, when Republicans won the popular vote for the House by an aggregate of 7 percentage points.

In other words, the four special elections, taken as a whole, suggest that Democrats may still be locked in a 2010-type political environment. Democrats might not lose many more seats in the House if that were the case, since most of their vulnerable targets have already been picked off, but it would limit their potential for any gains. And it could produce dire results for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where they have twice as many seats up for re-election.

Let’s also remember for one moment how Kathy Hochul won in a red district. She pummeled Republicans on their Medicare voucher idea, coming from right-wing darling Paul Ryan.

Pres. Obama is preparing, along with his “super committee,” to take that weapon away from Democrats, because of “reforms” being planned, which he’s reportedly set to outline next week.

Marc Ambinder writes about the White House spin, which started early and was piled on thick:

Still, Obama always has had trouble with Orthodox Jews, and two Obama advisers said they understand that at least some of the frustration may be exercised in the form of a vote against the Democratic candidate. They concede that the election might bring to the fore how difficult it will be for Obama to win back the trust of independents—no matter what their faith. This New York contest would seem to have implications beyond Brooklyn and Queens.

Partisans trying to make Democrats and progressives feel better about the reality being faced right now aren’t doing anyone any favors. But that’s what partisans do. They support the status quo, because otherwise they’d have to admit that their team sucks.

I honestly don’t know what else Democrats and progressives need to see for them to wake up to reality, which may be ugly, but is better to face now than this time next year.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Progressive Notes: Race Called for Turner in NY-09 in Disaster for Dems

By on 13 September 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
GET LIVE RESULTS ON NY-09 HERE.
11:30PM- 51PCT TURNER (R), 49PCT WEPRIN (D)
11:45PM- 53,47. Brooklyn is going huge for GOP tonight. Brooklyn.
12AM- AP CALLS RACE FOR TURNER. GOP WINS BIG- QUEENS AND BROOKLYN GO RED TONIGHT!
The results are flooding in from the special election we did not have to have nor needed at this moment. But thanks to Minority Leader Pelosi and the pious DNC former chair Tim Kaine here we are.

The district carried Obama by 55pct in 2008, so before the Obama folks online claim racism just remind them these same voters voted for Obama a few years ago. What has changed is Obama has become radioactive with a 31pct approval rating in NY-09. A district which also is 3 to 1 Democratic! Queens and part of Brooklyn comprises the district, a large number of Orthodox Jews live here who still usually vote Democratic as part of the New Deal coalition.

But tonight we have another body blow to t he Democratic Party and it is a VERY bad one. Losing this seat, at the heart of New York City, home to so much party history, will be terrible. Weprin’s GOP opponent Turner effectively turned the race into a referendum on Obama, his weakness on the economy and smeared POTUS on being “weak” on Israel. And it appears to have worked.

The seat has been held by Dems since 1923. And those who say “well voter shave no choice, they will vote Obama because the GOP is too scary.” Well tonight voters have shown they will go GOP even if they in the past voted Democratic. Time again for tough questions.

Appropos reading for tonight from Matt Stoller: party crisis.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

NY-9 Win Depends on The Machine, as Worries Widen about Obama

By on 13 September 2011

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish congressman, said the Jewish vote is a concern for his party. “I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.” – - Dems’ peril in New York special election sparks fear for Nov. ’12

Politico’s Alex Isenstadt has a good piece on what could make the difference in NY-9 today. It won’t be Weprin, that’s for sure.

But all of that might not matter on Tuesday, when the powerful Queens County Democratic Party machine — overseen by Rep. Joe Crowley — is planning to kick into high gear. By the time polls open, Weprin’s campaign estimates it will have contacted more than 200,000 voters. On Tuesday, an estimated 1,000 volunteers and get-out-the-vote workers will be knocking on doors, handing out literature outside subway stations and bus stops and offering senior citizens rides to the polls.

The machine will benefit from the helping hand of the Working Families Party, a labor-backed organization regarded for its professional turnout efforts. Few expect the Queens County Republican Party — for years consumed by internal fighting — to be able to seriously compete.

“We’re going to win on the ground, we’re going to beat them on the ground,” New York City Councilman Mark Weprin, the candidate’s brother, told POLITICO. “It will make a huge difference.”

Bill O’Reilly, a Turner strategist and veteran of New York City campaigns, conceded that Republicans can’t match the Democratic ground game. “Not a chance,” he said.

There is also a race in Nevada that Team Obama is watching and for good reasons. If Romney is the nominee, which I still believe is the safe bet, he’s got a decent base in that state, including the Mormon community, with today’s special election possibly holding clues to Obama’s chances in taking Nevada, a state he’s counting on. If I were to bet, I’d say Obama’s chances in the silver state are at best 50-50, but tonight could tell us more.

Few expect Marshall to prevail in Nevada, but a weak showing in Washoe County, the district’s most populous, could be a devastating precursor for Democrats. Obama is counting on Nevada as part of his path to reelection, and Washoe County, which includes Reno, is key to that strategy. Though Obama lost the 2nd District in 2008 and Sen. Harry Reid lost it in 2010, they both won Washoe County. – 5 things to watch in Nevada

Whatever happens in New York and Nevada, one thing is surfacing that should trouble Democrats and progressives. Pres. Obama today is considered a liability; so much so that leading Democratic stalwarts are speaking publicly about it. It’s the kiss of political death, which they know but don’t care, because they want the warning in the water.

A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. “I’m warning my clients — ‘Don’t run in 2012.’ I don’t want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,” said the strategist.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Kabul U.S. Embassy Attacked by Taliban

By on 13 September 2011

From The UK Telegraph

Live coverage over at the UK Telegraph, with photos of the action.

This from the New York Times report:

Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday, pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

At last night’s GOP debate the mantra to get out of Afghanistan remained a powerful message for Republicans if the establishment on the Right can get on board.

Secy. Clinton had an entirely different message on behalf of the Administration:

Americans will not be cowed and will continue to work in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday after Taliban gunmen attacked the US embassy in Kabul.

“The civilians who serve… will not be intimidated by this kind of cowardly attack,” Clinton said, adding there were no casualties among US personnel “a number of Afghan civilians have been hurt.”

Of course we do not want Americans to be “cowed” by the Taliban, but the continued obstinate response from the Obama administration on Afghanistan’s never ending resource drain is infuriating.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Perry’s Debate Performance, a Nixon Moment?

By on 13 September 2011

In the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate it was widely reported that Mr. Nixon was in ill health. The result was a pale, sweating Nixon against a vibrant, tanned John F. Kennedy. Of course, Bobby Kennedy bird-dogging the thermostat didn’t help Nixon’s predicament. As they say, the rest is history (with a lot of help from alleged vote-stuffing in West Virginia, that is).

Well, Burns & Haberman have a very interesting report via Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka, who’s been watching Perry for decades. It goes like this…

Perry was clearly off his game during the tea party debate. He looked uncomfortable, his face was strained, his combativeness was muted. He looked to me like a man with back pain. I wondered if he were wearing a brace. I’ve had back surgery, and it hurt to watch him.

I thought Romney won the debate. He took it to Perry from the outset, and he went for the intimidation play, staring his rival in the face as Perry gave his answers. Perry stumbled several times. I think of him as someone who has a great feel for his constituency, but I don’t know how anyone could have had a feeling for that constituency. That was one scary audience. Perry muffed the border fence question, muffed the dream act question (though his answers were sincere and courageous, and I agree with him in both cases). I thought he muffed Bachmann’s attack on the HPV question too, saying that he raised $30 million and he couldn’t be bought for $5,000. Croney capitalism is going to stick to Perry. There are too many instances–Harold Simmons and the nuclear waste dump, Bob Perry and the Residential Construction Commission, recipients of emerging technology grants, fund managers who got to invest teacher retirement money. It is a rich lode, and it is going to be mined by his enemies.

He just wasn’t presidential. He was low-energy and the feistiness wasn’t there. That’s why I’m wondering whether the back operation didn’t go well, or whether he got irked because Bachmann got to his right on the HPV issue. Another explanation could be that Perry has been around so long and has been so successful in politics that our expectations are high, and they are hard to meet. He just didn’t seem presidential, and I think the reason was that he was hurting.

[...] The big question mark for me is Perry’s health. Tonight was one of those rare moments when the camera didn’t love him. He has plenty of time to get back on his game, assuming that his physical condition holds up. But I am beginning to wonder whether he will have the stamina to hold up to the demands of a grueling campaign if his back is injured. For now, that’s just as big a threat as Romney is.

National politics is a cruel sport. You’ve got to be 111% on your game, especially against an iron man candidate like Mitt Romney, whose entire strategy is built around out lasting the flavors of the month.

The other problem for Perry is that at the national level you’ve got to be able to talk policy, which he has proved he can’t do past vacuous quips.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Bachmann Draws Blood on Perry, Romney Stays Steady

By on 13 September 2011

It was a brawl. A beautifully ugly Republican battle.

The Tea Party audience loved Rick Perry. …right up until he made the case for “illegal immigrant” children to get in-state tuition.

“I didn’t mind the vaccine, social security is a ponzi scheme, but the illegal immigration issue is killing Perry.” – Ann Coulter

The boos then started rolling in, which Romney utilized in a strong but not stand-out debate performance. But that wasn’t the worst of it for Perry.

Social Security is the issue that moves Democrats and progressives looking to the general election, with Romney and Perry going at it on it (video), but in a Tea Party nomination process on the way to securing the nomination, it’s crony capitalism that can kill you.

Bachmann’s attack on Perry drew praise from Sarah Palin, a line she used recently in Iowa to take on Republicans as she did in her rise in Alaska:

“That’s good… to call one another out on that,” Palin noted, as was it good to “fight crony capitalism.” “You have to go up against the big guns and they will trying to destroy you,” Palin argued, “I have the bumps and the bruises to prove it.” She predicted that Rep. Bachmann was “going to get crucified by some in the party who say ‘don’t violate Reagan’s 11th Commandment,’” one Palin made clear she had no intention of following herself, as she praised Rep. Bachmann for ignoring it.

Rick Perry’s been in Texas politics a long time and pay to play just happens to be the issue getting a lot of attention right now, with questions rising about whether it’s at the heart of Perry’s power.

When Bachmann got her chance she pounced and didn’t let go. It wasn’t just about the forced HPV vaccination of pre-teen girls, an issue of freedom and liberty, also close to the Tea Party’s heart, but the pay to play process that fueled it. Transcript and video via Huffington Post:


I just wanted to add that we cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order, there was a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate. We can’t deny that,” Bachmann said, referring to Merck.

“What I’m saying is that it’s wrong for a drug company — because the governor’s former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong. The question is, is it about life, or was it about millions of dollars and potentially billions for a drug company?”

Perry clarified that he received a $5,000 donation from Merck. “I raised about $30 million,” he said. “And if you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.”

“Well, I’m offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn’t have a choice,” replied Bachmann. “That’s what I’m offended for.”

Bachmann’s team went further, sending out a press release on Perry’s pay to play:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has admitted he was mistaken to issue his 2007 executive order mandating the Gardasil vaccine against a sexually-transmitted disease for 11-year-old girls. However, it remains unclear how much his ties to Merck, Gardasil’s maker, influenced this decision. Key advisors to Perry worked for Merck as lobbyists before and after he issued this executive order and Merck donated $6,000 to Perry in 2007. The drug maker stood to make tens of millions off Perry’s order until the legislature overturned it. ….

Lobbyist Mike Toomey served as Perry’s chief of staff for two years, then went on to lobby for gambling interests and the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine. …

Internal Perry office emails show frequent contact and coordination with Merck lobbyists, such as Mike Toomey and Lara Keel, in the weeks leading up to Perry’s decision on the executive order.

It had to delight the Romney campaign.

This is the way in on Perry, with Bachmann finding the vein. Romney needs to mine it, because although he was steady tonight, Perry’s clout with primary Tea Party voters is undeniable, as is Perry’s presence, with Tea Party voters besotted with the Governor.

As for the others, Santorum and Newt found their fraternal coupling, with Gingrich giving him a knowing wink at one point when Santorum went after Ron Paul over 9/11.

Ron Paul got booed when suggesting having the U.S. military stationed across the globe causes us trouble. And when he said sick people were on their own to die if they didn’t have or want health care, the audience cheered “Yeah!” for death (video).

Herman Cain had the quip of the night, when Blitzer asked what each candidate would bring to the White House as president: “I would bring a sense of humor to the White House, because America is too uptight.”

Jon Huntsman had a rough night, at one point calling out Perry for “treason” for saying the border could not be secured with a fence. It not only fell flat, but sounded like a line to make him sound more Tea Party-esque, which made him sound fake, because he’s not that guy.

CNN did a good job, with Wolf Blitzer distinguishing himself.

It was another rousing evening for Republicans, no doubt fueling enthusiasm, but who continue to sound crazier than a person wondering the street trying to get paid for his ramblings.

That’s why steady as he goes Mitt Romney has no choice but to just keep on sounding and looking like the grown up amidst the rabble, hoping Michele Bachmann will keep serving up Perry plums, because he can’t attack Perry on crony capitalism because he’s the poster man for it.

Rick Perry’s now got entry wounds even if the Tea Party can’t see them and doesn’t care. Social Security in the general election, but “illegal immigration” tuition is one for the primaries, with the pay to play HPV Merck example certainly not the only quid pro quo in his closet.

But you can bet Team Obama is doing opposition research while hoping Perry ends up being the one.

The Tea Party is giddy that they’ve found their man.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is drinking Highland Park hoping it’s all a bad dream.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Mike Huckabee: ‘Mitt may be the most electable Republican’

By on 12 September 2011

The first step to fixing a problem is honestly admitting there is a problem. America’s goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. But Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program. – Rick Perry: I am going to be honest with the American people

Could Republicans actually get a clue in time to keep a bruising battle going into late spring so their nominee can hone in on beating Obama?

Just in time for tonight’s debate, Tim Pawlenty endorses Romney, then on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Mike Huckabee states the obvious.

Five words into his op-ed for USA Today, Rick Perry began the damage control that will continue tonight, even as Michele Bachmann plots in desperation to blow up the efforts of the man who scuttled her nomination hopes.

Meanwhile at the White House, they’ll be rooting for Rick.

Politico begins the avalanche of interesting ethics angles that Team Obama could mine next year.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s humble origins and down home straight talk are central to his political identity, but for years Perry has enjoyed lavish perks and travel — mostly funded by a group of deep-pocketed supporters — that are allowed under his state’s lax ethics and campaign rules.

Some of the same Texas donors who have funded Perry’s political rise also have footed the bills for Perry and his family to jet around the world, stay in luxury hotels and resorts, vacation in tony Colorado ski towns, attend all manner of sporting events and concerts, and to maintain, entertain — and even pay the cable bill — at the 4,600-square-foot mansion with a heated pool that taxpayers are renting for him at a cost of about $8,500 a month.

And that’s to say nothing of the wide range of sometimes-expensive gifts Perry has accepted over the years, including 22 pairs of cowboy boots, Stetson hats, belt buckles, cuff links and at least nine hunting trips. …

The debate is on CNN and starts at 8 pm EST.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Brutal Beating Videos from Syria Spread Online

By on 12 September 2011

From The Lede, which has much more…

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, gave a staggering death toll from the violence in Syria as she addressed the opening session of the human rights council in Geneva on Monday. “With regard to Syria, let me note that, according to reliable sources on the ground, the number of those killed since the onset of the unrest in mid-March 2011 in that country, has now reached at least 2,600,” she said.

[...] The death of a human rights activist, Ghiyath Mattar, while in custody last week came after that report was published and drew forceful condemnation from the United States.

… The State Department said of the detention and death of Mr. Mattar:

Ghiyath Mattar’s courage in the face of the Asad regime’s brutal repression is well known in his home of Daraya and across Syria. His brave commitment to confronting the regime’s despicable violence with peaceful protest serves as an example for the Syrian people and for all those who suffer under the yoke of oppression.

According to a statement from the Local Coordination Committees on his death, the 26-year-old “was waiting for two births: the birth of his daughter who won’t have the chance to lay on his arms, and the birth of the new free, just and democratic Syria.”

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The Meaning of ‘Special Relationship’: Israel vs. Saudi Arabia

By on 12 September 2011

Incoming from Arabia.

From Turki al-Faisal:

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Which “special relationship” is more special?

Strategic interests abound, domestic politics prominently weighing down the inevitable awkwardness and the predictable conclusion.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }