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 | December, 2011

Why Newt Committed The Cardinal Sin Among Conservatives

By on 14 December 2011

We should not expect Gingrich to understand this until he understands that his work for Freddie Mac was not, as he laughably insists, in “the private sector.” – George Will

What George Will has done today is focus on Newt Gingrich’s “traditionalism,” which brings back former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s quote about Michele Bachmann.

“It had been a longstanding tradition in Congress to be fiscally conservative in every other district other than your own,” said John Feehery, president of QGA Communications and a top adviser to former Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert. “Bachmann apparently is being a traditionalist.” – Sam Stein

It’s a quote that makes my book in a section about conservatives and economic hypocrisy.

By trumpeting capitalism, using Mitt Romney’s experience at Bain Capital, Will brings to mind what David Brooks said about Donald Trump (which also makes it into my book) when he was riding high last spring.

He is riding something else: The strongest and most subversive ideology in America today. Donald Trump is the living, walking personification of the Gospel of Success.

Both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump made their money riding the bull, though in very different ways.

By contrast, Newt Gingrich has made his fortune by mining his government associations, like most former members of Congress, tapping into the “big government” money machine to enrich himself, using the very outlet conservatives are determined to “drown in the bathtub.”

Shorter Will: Newt is a opportunistic leach, sucking taxpayers dry, while utilizing their greatest enemy, “big government,” to do it.

It is not just a “capital crime,” it is the cardinal sin among conservatives.

It is also the foundation on which Mr. Gingrich’s serial hypocrisy is built.

It is decidedly un-conservative, as well as being inconsistent, something Michele Bachmann still has not had to face, because she’s not a leading contender.

Andrew Sullivan, takes issue with George Will and his defense of Romney’s Bain Capital photo.

And what Romney is revealing in that photo is pure worship and celebration of money and wealth – and the joys of rubbing it in the face of others.

It’s toxic. It’s ugly. It’s what helps drag conservatism down. You want a way to remind Reagan Democrats that the GOP is not their kind of show any more? The photo will do it. Can you imagine Reagan in that picture? Nah. Only the spoiled children of Reagan.

This from a guy with the Sarah Palin paternity fetish, who also believes intelligence is race-based. I actually feel sorry for Ron Paul, because today he got this guy’s endorsement.

It’s ironic. When Sullivan talks about “the spoiled children of Reagan,” he obviously doesn’t realize that one of those petulant adolescents is Newt.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

“Liberating the Left,” by Occupation

By on 14 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

From the initiators of the Occupy Movement, on December 1, Darren Fleet writes at Adbusters “Fear of Flying: Liberating the Left … .” It includes this:

Lefty arguments are fraught with asterisks, exceptions, caveats, considerations, footnotes, excuses and pie-in-the-sky moral posturing coded in a lexicon that most people don’t even get.

The right meanwhile is able to stand behind simplistic, strong and wrong optimism, cloaking itself with the grace of God and good intentions. The left is caught navel-gazing and obsessing over whether or not their actions are philosophically correct; stuttering, qualifiyng, apologizing, accommodating, whimpering along the way. The right meanwhile is going with its gut, shooting from the hip … pick your conservative maxim. The reins of global power are in the hands of those who are able to symbolize a big idea, whatever that idea may be. The fortunes of the global left depend on whether or not they can take a stand on a big idea again.

This isn’t a new analysis, but it’s still timely. I read the following as related to questions about what “the left” will do, not just as related to the Occupy movement, but that’s where the action is centered at this moment. From Brittnay Shoot, at AlterNet:

Occupy the Stage: Hip-Hop Artists Fight Continuing Segregation with National Tour

Rapper Toussaint Morrison has long been involved in intervention-based educational theater and socially conscious hip-hop. …

Toussaint got in touch with two of his friends, Los Angeles–based rapper, organizer, and Ph.D. Jus Rhyme … and Minneapolis-based pop-funk songstress Mayda. The trio … began asking one another what it would mean to tour the top ten most segregated cities in the country, addressing issues of gender, race, and class discrimination through art.

The result is the Segregated City Tour. Shoot continues:

Despite the disconnected beginnings of each, the Segregated City Tour and the Occupy movements have a symbiotic relationship. Both raise more questions than can be answered, but Jus Rhyme thinks that’s appropriate.

‘It isn’t Occupy’s job to answer all the questions being raised. … It’s up to society and institutions of power to answer why this is happening.’ Pushing back against the dominant narrative that the Occupy movement is incoherent and disconnected, he shares his enthusiasm for the way the new movement is growing, explaining that it’s often hard to recognize what can truly cause change as it is unfolding. In the same way, he hopes the Segregated City Tour will raise more questions than it answers while creating an accessible platform for others to share their experiences and talk about change in their own communities.</blockquote>

Of course, there are other perspectives, including from those who think Occupy should, in fact, provide answers as well as questions. From Laura Flanders, at The Nation, in “What a Difference an Occupation Makes”:

As Boots Riley, of Occupy Oakland (and the Coup) told me a few weeks back. ‘What we’re thinking about now is how OWS can become a tool in the hands of communities.’ Which is to say, where can 500, 1,000, 2,000 people, make a difference? At an eviction, a housing auction, a school board hearing, in a congressman’s office—OWS have shown they can make an impact in all those places. …

‘The way to get community support,’ says (Malik) Rhasaan (of Occupy the Hood) ‘is to work in the community. Offer change people can measure.’ Note, he didn’t say ‘believe in.’ Been there, done that. What’s being asked of OWS now is not what the movement can demand but what they can deliver, for people who feel their lives, not just their hopes, hang in the balance.

My take, as always, is that it requires everyone who is willing to step up and do the needed work. I think it highly unlikely that alone, the Occupy Movement can name the problems and create the solutions. It seems obvious that “the left,” in its various forms, hasn’t been able to do that, either. So, you work together. Of course, being willing to do that, and being willing to go through the constant necessity of learning and evolving, is a challenge in itself.

One key component is a willingness to acknowledge the complexities, to accept the reality that there aren’t always, even usually, easy “fixes.” Among other things, that requires listening to each other, and generally speaking, that’s hard work in itself, even if everyone involved identifies as on “the left.”

I know it’s another example of my stating the obvious, but the problems Occupy, and others, are highlighting are complex. And the demands of media, pundits, Electeds and whoever else that Occupy provide neat and tidy answers, preferably ones which fit into the “analysis” and sound bites with which they are comfortable, just add to the complications. I think in part, at least, that’s what this “Open Letter from America’s Port Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports,” related to the December 12 Port Shutdown,” points out. From OWS Press:

We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day. …

While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?

Repeating, from the “Liberating the Left” article with which I began: “The fortunes of the global left depend on whether or not they can take a stand on a big idea again.” Of course, you first have to recognize the need for “liberation,” and then want to be “liberated,” before you can create and carry out ways to make that happen, before you can “take a stand on a big idea.” I think that’s what the Occupy movement is playing a very big role in doing: recognizing and “taking a stand.” And providing one possible way for “the left” to liberate itself.

It’s the classic “the emperor has no clothes” kind of thing: Look at Wall Street. Look at the Two Corporate Parties. They. Have. No. Clothes. Why the hell keep pretending they’re dressed in respectable suits, or that they’re paying anything but election year attention to people who are having very real problems providing clothing and other essentials for themselves?

(I Lost My Job poster via Occupy Posters )

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

TIME Picks Protester, Right Wingers Implode

By on 14 December 2011

The PROTESTER is “Person of the Year” for TIME magazine. That TIME’s cover also looks decidedly female is critically important.

The right is not amused. Poor babies.

Nothing was more important this year than the Arab Spring, which detonated a movement across the Middle East, with Americans and the world watching as oppressed people, especially women, rose up.

The right evidently thought that this burst of independence would automatically resound in the favor of the United States, as if that was the primary goal of people in Tunisia, Egypt and beyond.

When the Arab Spring energy hit American shores it unleashed Occupy, another event that has the right reeling.

Why?

Because as non-ideological fury over the lack of fairness in this country takes root, the right is whining that the Tea Party has been upstaged. Deal with it, they are yesterday’s news.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

What Might Happen Around the World in 2012?

By on 14 December 2011

Global recession with a surprise winner or two – The Eurozombies may avoid catastrophe but instead produce a macroeconomic remake of Night of the Living Dead. Recession in austerity-bound Europe will only be worsened by the sweeping downturn already taking place in the emerging world, and the result could be a deeper slump worldwide. But here’s the twist: the United States will win, as it is a destination for those in the midst of one of the most confusing, frustrating flights to quality in recent history. Japan too. They won’t do very well at all, but in the global ugly contest they may take home least-ugly honors. – David Rothkopf

So, what could happen in 2012?

David Rothkopf over at Foreign Policy has done his next year headlines in review list, many of which don’t take an expert’s mind to name. Stephen Walt has his own that includes Israel accepting the Arab League Peace Plan. Rothkopf thinks the Eurozone will strengthen. More are below.

The end of Ahmadinejad, but it won’t come through Dick Cheney’s fantasies or any neoconservative getting his war wishes in a Christmas stocking. From Erin Burnett’s “Out Front,” when Burnett brought up the RQ-170 sentinel:

CHENEY: I would assume that’s the case. Or they’ll send it back in pieces after they’ve gotten all the intelligence they can out of it.

The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it. You can do that from the air. You can do that with a quick airstrike, and in effect make it impossible for them to benefit from having captured that drone. I was told that the president had three options on his desk. He rejected all of them.

BURNETT: And they all involved removing the drone immediately?

CHENEY: They all involved sending somebody in to try to recover it, or if you can’t do that, admittedly that would be a difficult operation, you certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an airstrike. But he didn’t take any of the options. He asked for them to return it. And they aren’t going to do that.

The world is going to continue to have major shifts in power centers.

The collapse of Assad in Syria, which couldn’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned.

Political unrest in China? It’s the beginning, Rothkopf predicts.

Power struggle in Pakistan?  Nothing new there.

Say goodbye to Castro and Hugo Chavez?

Incoming “cybershocker” that will take down somebody financially.

Putin’s not going to return to power easily.

…and get ready for extremism in Africa to become an American strategic interest.

Interesting list, as is Stephen Walt’s.

Do you have any thoughts on what might happen in the world next year?

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears

By on 14 December 2011

Available at Amazon.com and Apple starting Dec. 15.

WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came Politico. This is my wheel house. Having written the book, quite literally, on what happened (which hits Amazon and Apple tomorrow), there isn’t anyone who can speak to this subject better.
Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

IOWA: Gingrich 22, Ron Paul 21

By on 14 December 2011

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%. – Paul Closes in on Gingrich (PPP)


If anything describes Newt Gingrich it is “serial hypocrisy,” to quote Ron Paul and his video above, which got airtime on cable.

The negative incoming on Newt Gingrich is having an impact, which it should.

The daily barrage from conservatives from George Will to Charles Krauthammer to Joe Scarborough, who has been ruthlessly cold, is another problem.

Newt’s real problem, however, is himself and the cumulative history of his past and what he’s been doing with his life, that when digested, has got to be impossible for any principled conservative to stomach.

On another Newt note, during an Iowa focus group, Craig Berman, a Tea Party guy who was about to join the Gingrich campaign as their new political director in Iowa, evidently jumped the shark. From the Des Moines Register:

“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon,” Bergman said during the focus group, according to The Iowa Republican. “There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”

In a statement, the Gingrich campaign nixed Bergman’s hire, saying he “agreed to step away from his role with Newt 2012.” The rest of the response from the campaign talks about how this is “inconsistent with Newt 2012′s pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign,” without calling out and blasting what is clearly religious bigotry. Gingrich’s people obviously don’t want to offend these so-called religious people, because they might lose their votes.

If there is any political justice (there rarely is) and if Iowa conservatives have any real core (I’m not sure they do, especially those bigoted evangelicals), Republican primary voters will give the nod to Ron Paul.

Not being on the ground in Iowa, however, I’m wondering if his supporters will be able to handle the caucus atmosphere. I’ve experienced a caucus before and they’re not for the uninitiated.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Christiane Amanpour Out of ‘This Week,’ Stephanopoulos Back In

By on 13 December 2011

It’s been a rough trial for Christiane Amanpour as anchor to ABC’s Sunday talk show, which is the political event of the week on all channels. Planning for the presidential election, it seems obvious, Amanpour was pulled. That’s because Ms. Amanpour is not political and showed no real gift or flair for it. It was a bad fit and the ratings seemed to have taken her out. She’ll remain partly at ABC, as global affairs anchor, which sounds like it taps into her long-earned strengths, while also getting a daily show on CNN International.

George Stephanopoulos, who is a very political animal, will get back in the “This Week” chair, just as the Republican primary voting takes off.

From AP:

George Stephanopoulos is returning to Sunday mornings at ABC News, replacing Christiane Amanpour as host of the political talk show “This Week.”

ABC said Tuesday that Stephanopoulos, who returns Jan. 8, will remain as host of “Good Morning America,” although likely on a four-day schedule.

 Job hazard: At Christmas parties, everyone wants me to tell them what TV shows they really should be watching. Depending on the strength of the nog, I sometimes draw a complete blank. So this is the list — my top 10 for 2011 — that I’ll keep in my inside pocket for just such moments . . . — Hank Stuever

Amanpour, meanwhile, enters an unusual job-sharing role where she will become ABC’s global affairs anchor, contributing to prime-time shows on world news, while also being host of a daily show on CNN International.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The Politics of Occupy and Grassroots Guidance

By on 13 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

A recent tweet, at Occupy USA: “Boots Riley tweets: ‘Mainstream media has moved from saying #OWS has no power, 2 sayin that we have power but r misguided.’”

“Nothing like some success to bring out the people who tell you what you’re doing wrong.” That was said to me years ago, following the most successful fundraising event a particular LGBT organization had ever had. I’ve been thinking about that, related to Occupy.

Unable to pretend that Occupy isn’t having successes, media, pundits, Electeds and others have turned to telling the Occupiers that they don’t know how to build on those successes. One significant part of the advice, or lecture, is about how Occupy is / should be related to politics, mostly with regard to the Democratic Party.

There are headlines like, “What Occupy Must / Should / Is Failing To Do.” Some, from both supportive and non-supportive perspectives, I find thoughtful. But the question of what to do related to the political status quo was being addressed, by Occupiers, from the beginning. I don’t think it surprises anyone that there are differing Occupier opinions and ideas, though to this point, that Occupy is not a political party, nor does it support any political party, seems to remain dominant.

Of course, it’s not an either / or situation – occupy or work within the existing electoral system. Those engaged in either or both can talk, share ideas, goals, even actions. And given the “horizontal” methods of decision making, each Occupy group will make its own choices.

From my perspective, though, it’s not Occupy’s job to do the work of reforming the Democratic party. There can be overlap, but the “outside” voice is what’s creating the conversation and the “pushing” of the Electeds. Of course Democratic related organizations would have stepped up their game in 2012, whether or not Occupy had ever happened. But Occupy has pushed those organizations, has pushed the Dem party, and has pushed the efforts toward “third parties” in ways that couldn’t have come from inside.

“Occupy will never die; Evict us, we multiply!” is the headline at a Dec. 10 posting at OWS. If you read nothing else, read this:

To the 1%’s pundits who claim Occupy is over: We are still here. Even as the agents of the 1% evict our communities and eviscerate our rights, we are evolving. …

Occupations across the country have found creative ways to persist, resist, and rebuild. … Last we checked, tents still stand in DC, Chicago, Boise, Oklahoma City, Buffalo, Miami, Chapel Hill, Cleveland, Providence, Baltimore, Orlando, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Pensacola, Lexington, Newark, Gainesville, Peoria, Eugene, Rochester, Orlando, Tacoma, Reno, Charlotte, Raleigh, New Haven, Houston, Austin, Tampa, Louisville, and elsewhere. In Anchorage, they even have igloos. …

Occupiers in cities like Atlanta, Oakland, Fort Worth, Jackson, and Phoenix have cleverly responded to evictions by staying in the parks during the day and moving to the sidewalk at night. In Los Angeles, Toronto, San Diego, Portland, Tulsa, San Jose, Dayton, Tucson, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Sacramento, Hartford, Charlottesville, Denver, Dallas, Norfolk, Richmond, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and New York, evicted Occupations continue to hold General Assemblies and maintain busy calendars with daily meetings, events, workshops, teach-ins, marches, direct actions, and demonstrations at their local city hall, bank branch, corporate office, and courts.

We are also disrupting business-as-usual from Wall Street to K Street. … We mic check corrupt politicians and 1%ers everywhere they go. We have moved homeless families into empty foreclosed homes. We have spread our message by occupying the highway. …

While maintaining our nonpartisan focus on economic inequality and connecting a diversity of issues that impact the 99%, Occupations have begun to refine and hone our messaging around the big banks, foreclosures, evictions, and housing. …

We have marched on U.S.-companies that supply teargas to the Egyptian government … ; with immigrants rights activists against deportation, detention and wage-theft in Birmingham and New York; with seniors to advocate for social services; with students against tuition-hikes, with workers and unions for jobs, better working conditions, and fair wages; and with farmers fighting for food justice. … We’ve marched to draw attention to the connections between the corrupt banking system and issues like the prison industrial complex and climate change.

This is merely a sketch of the ongoing work of the Occupy Wall Street movement. … And we’re just getting started.

What are the politics of the Occupy movement? And how do you change an entrenched and stacked against you political system?

If OWS disappeared (which I don’t think likely, though it will surely continue evolving), what then? Would we just go back to pre-Occupation days, and the familiar “lesser of two evils,” “after this election we can start to change things,” “voting in third parties is only voting for (whichever candidate you oppose), or a ‘wasted’ vote,” and all the other familiar Two Party rhetoric? Occupy isn’t the only way to challenge “the system,” but they’ve done more to change the broad conversation in the last few months than anyone else has in the last several years, if not decades.

If the movement shifts to a largely or strictly Insider game, then I think a major opportunity will have been lost. I actually don’t think that’s what will happen, that Occupy will – as the Democratic Party so obviously wants them to do – become assimilated into the Dem Party. Just as obviously, I could be wrong about that. But advocacy requires some degree of autonomy. If the people you’re seeking to influence know they’ll get your ultimate support, no matter what, there’s little to zero incentive to listen to you, much less respond to you.

The tweet with which I began: “Mainstream media has moved from saying #OWS has no power, 2 sayin that we have power but r misguided.” What “misguided” means, of course, is that the MSM, among others, thinks they should provide the correct “guidance.” But like the movement itself, the politics of the Occupy movement are evolving, and doing so at a grassroots level, with a grassroots guidance.

( Poster via Occupy Posters )

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Trump Bails on his own Apprentice Debate

By on 13 December 2011

Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he will not moderate next month’s GOP debate sponsored by Newsmax. – Trump pulls out of GOP debate

The debate was actually scheduled for later this month, not “next month.”

Trump cited sheer terror from the Establishment Republican crowd that he might run as an independent. Yeah, that’s it.

Showing his class to the end, Trump then threatened Romney, but not in a bad way for the candidate.

Trump also said that Mitt Romney’s decision not to participate — the former Massachusetts governor cited a scheduling conflict — would affect his decision when considering who to endorse.

A Trump endorsement is worthless, though nobody has the heart to tell The Donald.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Tea Party Man, Newt Gingrich

By on 13 December 2011


The DNC hit Newt with a new video after the Iowa debate on Saturday.

Matt Taylor over at Joe Conason’s National Memo explains why Tea Partiers love Newt, just in case the DNC ad above doesn’t do the job.

“Republicans have found the best anti-Romney,” said Sidney Blumenthal, whose tenure as a senior advisor to Bill Clinton overlapped with some of Gingrich’s time as Speaker of the House. “Boiled down to its essence, it’s resentment. For Gingrich, his great talent is to voice and reflect resentment.”

And now he is now doing what Romney never could: reminding Republicans of the heyday of the modern conservative movement in the mid 1990s, when the right was winning the culture war and Bill Clinton was signing reactionary legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition to same-sex relationships.

“He pulled off this historic coup,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton and an expert on Congress. “He made conservatives a force in the Republican Party, and in some ways conservatives are forever grateful and appreciate that he delivered for them.”

It’s the resurgence of dog whistle politics at a time when the Tea Party is not nearly as powerful with the majority of Americans as it was in 2010. This is why so many Republican establishment types are worried about a Gingrich nomination.

And just when you thought this couldn’t get any weirder, Michael Savage is offering Newt $1 million to quit the race. We’ve never seen anything like this before.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Gingrich: I won’t cheat anymore, promise.

By on 12 December 2011

Oh, that Newt. After two strikes, he’s ready to cross his heart and hope to win Iowa that he won’t ever cheat again.

From Burns & Haberman:

To Bob Vander Plaats and the Executive Board of The FAMiLY LEADER:

I appreciate the opportunity to affirm my strong support of the mission of the FAMiLY LEADER by solemnly vowing to defend and strengthen the family through the following actions I would take as President of the United States.

Defending Marriage. As President, I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions, especially in the military. I will also aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal and state courts. I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman. I will support all efforts to reform promptly any uneconomic or anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy. I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others. …

I know all Americans who don’t have a job are relieved to discover the serial womanizer has given it all up for Callista.

This is more important than Newt’s destructive neoconservative fetish, as well as all the many ways he’s flip flopped on foreign policy issues. A couple of examples from the link:

PUTIN’S RUSSIA

“Putin really is a generation beyond the first reformers of the post-Soviet era. He understands that the future of Russia is inside some kind of capitalist system. He understands that Russia is not going to be a global competitor. Now, he’s more authoritarian than I might like. But again, this is a country in dramatic transition. And when you look back 12 or 13 years, even his authoritarianism is remarkable, more open as a society than anything one could have dreamed as late as 1987 or 1988. So I think there you’re likely to see an emerging continuing American-Russian friendship.” – Feb. 28, 2002

“Putin represents a dictatorial approach that’s very violent, it was violent in the Chechnyan situation, it is violent in, for example, stealing investment money back from oil companies in the Soviet Union — Russia — the former Soviet Union. Putin was a KGB agent and he has a lot of KGB behaviors. They went out of their way in the last week to take on a small neighbor and crush that neighbor militarily. It’s a signal that he intends to assert authority around the periphery of Russia. – Aug. 16, 2008

JONATHAN POLLARD

“I think it would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to start putting traitors on the negotiating table as a pawn, and I hope the administration will now say they will not, under any circumstance, release Pollard,” – Oct. 24, 1998

“I am prepared to say my bias is towards clemency, and I would like to review it. He’s been in [jail] a very long time. But we are pretty tough about people spying on the United States. And I also have a study under way to compare his sentence with comparable people who have been sentenced for very long sentences for comparable deeds.” – Dec. 7, 2011

LIBYA

“Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Qaddafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, [and provide] help to the rebels to replace him…. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” – March 7, 2011

“I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.” – March 23, 2011

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

12-12 Port Shutdown and the “vampire squid”

By on 12 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

“Shutdown the Port” actions began early this morning, and continue. You can check out what’s happening via OWS, where you will find a livestream link. The purpose of the Port Shutdown, from Occupy SF:

We Are Protesting…
• In solidarity with the ILWU Local 21 workers in Longview, WA and their struggle against EGT (Export Grain Terminal)
• In solidarity with port truck drivers and their struggle to be reclassified as employees, rather than independent operators, and in their fight to be organized in a union.
• In response to the coordinated national attacks against the Occupy camps. This is our coordinated response to police violence and repression.
• Against the priorities of the 1% and ‘Wall Street on the Waterfront.’

From some participating locations, the first revealing another innovation in the Occupy movement, via Occupy Oakland:

In the early hours of December 11th an autonomous group of individuals launched a handmade raft in Lake Merritt, the SS Don’t Let the Banks Punk You Out. Their aim is to bring attention to the occupy movement, which has been evicted from Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza and has faced repression across the country and all over the world. …

The occupants of the SS Don’t Let the Banks Punk You Out also hope to bring attention to the … coordinated west coast port shutdown … . The shutdown is in solidarity with the longshoremen against the multinational corporation EGT and the truckers against one of the main culprits of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs. Cities participating in the port shutdown include: Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tacoma, Olympia, Seattle and Vancouver. There will be solidarity actions in cities without ports, such as Denver and Houston.

Go to those Occupy sites for local information.

On the related Vampire Squid story, from OWS:

NYC will Target the Vampire Squid- Goldman Sachs

In solidarity with the West Coast Port Shutdown on December 12th , the NYC Occupy Movement vows to disrupt business as usual for the that exploit our nation’s ports – and profit from the exploitation of tens of thousands of working people laboring behind the scenes …of the international trade system. …

Occupies from coast to coast have joined with longshoremen and truckers in the fight against the exploitation of workers. On December 12th, the 99% will take action in support of these workers and their successful mobilizations, unifying around key strategic targets engaged in indulgent control of our economy and government.

In a related action, from Occupy Denver:

In response to rumors, lies, and hearsay that have circulated regarding the 12/12 Walmart Action, we, as the General Assembly of Occupy Denver and the planners of the action in Loveland, hereby reaffirm that the 12/12 Action is and has always been a non-violent action, and that we do not and have never condoned or sanctioned violence of any kind or the destruction of property. Any allegations to the contrary are patently false.

A few 12-12 day of action related tweets, plus a couple of others:

andybp85 RT @OccupyWallStNYC: Why #GoldmanSachs? They r owner of the shipping company that is target of #D12 #PortShutDown.

WhirlwindWisdom RT @kstrel: The vampire squid is trying to enter Goldman Sachs building. Crowd chanting ‘he’s gotta go to work!’

savetheusa RT @nydailynews: #OWS using squid symbol b/c @mtaibbi called Goldman Sachs ‘a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity’ bit.ly/fP1n2A

Sancti_purist RT @mofogrande: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, & then they build a tv version of your camp.#ows #mockupy

More on the “Mockupy” story at Huffington.

At Occupy Patriarchy, you can read about a number of “empowering actions and statements” around the U.S. Included in the piece is this:

The recent demonizing and vilifying of the Occupy movement in the media is a scape-goating of the problems and violence that plague our communities and cities daily. Rape happens every day, murder happens every day and Suicide happens every day. These tragedies are not symptoms or creations of the Occupy Movement, nor are they exclusive to the Occupy Movement; they are realities of our society and of our everyday lives.

Finally, a couple of things from Occupy Boston. First, read “We might have been evicted, but we shall not be moved”.

And from a recent Fact of the Day:

While 100 million Americans are at or near the poverty level and Congress debates whether it can afford an extension of unemployment benefits and other crucial lifelines for working Americans, a new report estimates that U.S. corporations are sitting on $3.6 trillion in cash reserves.

The corporations are “sitting on” those reserves in ways that are legal, or at least that’s what I’m reading. Just like for years, decades, the right to vote was denied, “legally,” based on whether or not you owned land, or on race or gender, or right now in some states, on whether you have the latest state approved identification (meant to make voting more difficult). Just as lesbian and gay couples are “legally” denied the right to marry by our federal, and most, state governments. Just as the right to strike has been consistently and “legally” curtailed. The Occupy movement is addressing a “legal” system — or systems, political, financial and more — at fundamental levels of human rights. Not perfectly, not without mistakes, but also with some significant success.

I’ve not said this in a while, but please remember that in these posts, I’m only hitting on a few actions and stories and comments. A great deal more is happening.

In response to a few inquiries, a housekeeping note: Computer challenges are making it difficult for me to get to Comments. And there are some “life” challenges as well, reducing time available. I do read all comments, and appreciate everyone’s participation. Please keep talking. I hope to be able to join you again soon.

( Vampire Squid graphic via Digg
Port Shutdown Raft photo via Occupy Oakland )

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

A Little Love Over to Rocky Anderson & the Justice Party

By on 12 December 2011

Pres. Obama’s getting a challenger from his left today when Rocky Anderson announces the creation of the Justice Party at 2:00 p.m.

No one thinks it will challenge Obama in a serious way for election results, but it might give some Democrats, progressives and liberals a way to vote that won’t require them to hold their nose for Pres. Obama. That is, if Mr. Anderson can get on the ballot in all 50 states, which certainly isn’t a given.

From the Justice Party National Committee:

On Monday, December 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, a diverse group of courageous citizens will announce the formation the Justice Party, which is envisioned as a major new political party for decades to come. The Justice Party seeks governing authority at the local, state, Congressional and national levels, beginning in the 2012 election cycle. The Justice Party is being created as a new 21st-century political vehicle to allow all citizens to work together to bring innovative results-oriented, justice-based solutions to the political debate as soon as possible.

As I said in this post earlier today, many would take issue on whether the movement Pres. Obama talked about on “60 Minutes” is a result of any leadership at all, as the President claimed, let alone any leadership in a direction that is progressive economically or something a Democratic president should trumpet. That Pres. Obama has presided over a steady rightward tilt of the political conversation will be a challenge for Democrats, but especially progressives, to change for some time to come.

It’s just one reason Rocky Anderson is creating the Justice Party, with one part of his platform being to get big money out of politics, something that Sen. Bernie Sanders rails about, as does the MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan.

Kudos to Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” for interviewing Rocky Anderson today, who’s the longest shot in the political sphere, but who seems undaunted by the challenge.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Pres. Obama: ‘Our war in Iraq ends this month.’

By on 12 December 2011

Meanwhile, interesting tidbit on Pres. Obama in South Carolina in the latest NBC News/Marist poll:

In South Carolina — a reliable Republican state in presidential contests — Obama’s approval rating stands at 44 percent, and he holds narrow leads over Romney (45 to 42 percent) and Gingrich (46 to 42 percent).

Obama leads both Republicans in South Carolina right now?

Somewhere Jimmy Carter, who last took the state, is smiling.

As for Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi and Iran are plotting, which is just one reason we should have never waged this preemptive war.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

One Reason Why Newt is Clocking Romney in the Polls

By on 12 December 2011


Romney team demands Newt give back money from Freddie Mac.

Gingrich schools him on how it’s done.

In the sound bite game, Romney’s an amateur compared to Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Steve Rattner Reveals Obama Administration’s View of Elizabeth Warrren

By on 12 December 2011

Going back to 2006, my opinion of Steve Rattner is on the record (cross-posted at Huffington Post at the time), because he’s part of the problem with the Democratic Party. He was a Lieberman Democrat as well. Rattner’s also a big favorite of the “Morning Joe” team.

Today Mr. Rattner channeled what I believe is the Obama administration’s view of Elizabeth Warren, illustrating why Pres. Obama hung her out to dry, which I’ve talked about many times before.

Rattner’s comment came in an off the cuff moment right before a commercial break and after a brief discussion of what a “great candidate” Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be. Mike Barnicle coming down on that side as well, agreeing with Mika Brzezinski that “odds on she will win,” though we’re an awfully long way out for predictions, in my opinion.

Scarborough: “She’s a great candidate. But Scott Brown’s a great candidate. Steve Rattner, are you going to write a check to a Republican this year in Massachusetts?

Rattner: “I may well. I may well. I may well. I think that she is actually on the wrong side of a lot these issues. The banks did a lot of bad stuff, but not what she thinks they did.”

This is why Tim Geithner reportedly devised a plan to keep Warren out of running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her brainchild, while Pres. Obama didn’t lift a finger to support this woman.

Elizabeth Warren is just too tough on the too big to fail banks as far as big money Democrats like Steve Rattner and the boss, Pres. Obama, are concerned.

Tim Geithner is the leading the protection racket inside the Administration for the big banks, Larry Summers the primary cheerleader.

Pres. Obama’s protection policy for the big banks and Wall Street, while allowing them to make more money in Obama’s first years than they did in Bush’s 8, is just one reason why Rocky Anderson is announcing the formation of the Justice Party today at 2:00 p.m.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

CBS Poll: 54% Say Pres. Obama Doesn’t Deserve to be Reelected

By on 12 December 2011

Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don’t think so. The president’s overall approval rating remains in the mid-40′s, according to a CBS News poll – lower than the approval ratings of Mr. Obama’s four presidential predecessors at this point in their first terms. Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dragged down by his poor marks for his handling of the economy – which, at 33 percent, is the lowest rating of his presidency in CBS News polls. – Grim economic outlook weighs down Obama approval rating

The CBS News poll released this past weekend shows Pres. Obama’s approval higher, mid-40s, than the last daily Gallup, which had him at 41%. But 54% in the CBS News poll saying he doesn’t deserve reelection is a problem. It’s part of what Pres. Obama talked about on “60 Minutes” last night.

…And meanwhile, they know that corporate profits are at a record level, that a lot of folks are doing very well. What’s happened to the bargain? What’s happened to the American deal that says, you know, we are focused on building a strong middle class? That is not a left or right position. That is an American position. And the question is going to be, in this election, whether or not we are able to reclaim that vital center of American thought and American values that says, “We’re all in this together and, you know, it matters if we are building a broad-based middle class, where everybody is able to do their part and everybody’s able to succeed. – Pres. Obama

When you look at the alternative, however, it leaves most Americans without a choice. That’s the biggest problem today looking at next year’s election. The option of voting either Democratic or Republican is just not enough anymore.

Along with the polling comes a lot of things being said about Pres. Obama, a couple that are ridiculous. The “appeasement” charge is absurd. So is Mitt Romney’s continual claim that the President apologizes for America. Glenn Kessler took that canard down over the weekend, then summarized the bottom line: “Take it from us: The apology tour never happened.”

Last night Pres. Obama was on “60 Minutes” making the point he understands people are frustrated, but asks the question, Is there a more compelling case coming from the other side? There isn’t, which is Obama reelects biggest gift from Republicans.

Part 1 of the interview is here, with part 2 of the interview at the top, which begins with questions from Steve Kroft on Wall Street and why there hasn’t been criminal prosecutions of anyone.

“…some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal. … That’s why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression.” – Pres. Obama

Pres. Obama also said something quite remarkable:

“…Democrats have moved significantly on a whole range of issues in part because of my leadership.” – Pres. Obama

Many would take issue on whether the movement from Democrats is a result of any leadership at all, let alone any leadership in a direction that is progressive economically or something a Democratic president should trumpet. That Pres. Obama has presided over a steady rightward tilt of the political conversation will be a challenge for Democrats, but especially progressives, to change for some time to come.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Romney’s $10,000 Bet Trends Worldwide, While Gingrich Flunks History

By on 11 December 2011

While Twitter and the press were giddy over Romney’s $10,000 bet-pocalypse line, the serious gaffes of the night went to “historian” Newt Gingrich, who called himself a Reagan conservative, doubling down on his “invented” Palestinian line, which doesn’t come close to Reagan’s views at all.

Throughout this period of difficult and time-consuming negotiations, we never lost sight of the next step of Camp David — autonomy talks to pave the way for permitting the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate rights. – Ronald Reagan (h/t Ben Smith via Twitter)

You can make your own bets over which will get more coverage.

“He’s going to own that $10,000 bet line,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said on Twitter. “Nothing else he has said in this debate matters.” – TPM

Earlier in the debate, Newt landed a beautiful zinger that pretty much characterized Gingrich’s demeanor the entire debate.

“The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.” – Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney

However, Mitt didn’t go “beet-red,” as has been predicted, with this providing a moment that proved Romney could take a punch, which he turned around with a nice line that if his dreams to be a pro football player had come true he’d have had a career in the NFL.

But at the end of the debate, Matthew Dowd proclaimed Newt Gingrich now the candidate to beat, as Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet line ricocheted across Twitter. It’s stunning Romney’s people are trying to push that it won’t hurt him, as #What10kbuys was trending worldwide.

“I’ll bet you a bottle of 1961 Chateau Lafitte that I’m a regular guy.” – Paul Begala

There was little discussion of jobs, with climate change not addressed at all, neither was China or the war in Afghanistan. Diane Sawyer took a beating on Twitter.

I’m still not there on Newt Gingrich and this debate moved people like Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann up, maybe even Santorum and Perry, because he served up the Romney trap. Maybe I’m blind to Gingrich, because I know his history, but tonight I simply disagree with the majority who think he “won.” I found him pompous, though the base will like that, though I think his surly demeanor, but also his clear petulance at Bachmann’s bites, made him look like an elite who doesn’t like to be questioned.

Newt will tell “the truth” all the way to losing 40 states in November… – Mike Murphy

Michele Bachmann grabbed hold of Mitt and Newt, conjuring up the perfect political clone of the two heavy weights, naming it “Newt Romney” and never let go. She even was able to draw first blood on Gingrich, whom she clearly pissed off by going after his record, making Newt look surly and small at one point. Bachmann was able to remind her home state fans just why she won the Ames straw poll, while invoking Herman Cain every chance she got to try to pull his supporters over to her side. Watch her numbers this next week.

Rick Santorum, yes, him, had his best night.

It’s why neither Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney will be impacted much by what happened last night, though the problem for Romney is the reverberation of the $10,000 bet line. For one thing, it will aid Obama and the Democrats greatly and help them continue to drill down that he’s slick Mitt, the one-percenter, because the line wasn’t off the cuff, it came out like a serious bet.

Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register tweeted this: Not too many Iowa caucusgoers are the sort to offer a $10,000 bet, even on a sure thing.

The fact that Romney would have won the bet hardly matters (h/t @JakeTapper). That’s not what it was about. The tone deafness rang like John Kerry’s I-voted-for-the-87-billion… yada-yada line, which stuck to him like a bad smell the whole campaign.

However, Newt Gingrich’s Palestinian line has real legs too and an impact that would have real and lasting damage if this wasn’t a Republican primary. Rick Santorum backed up Romney’s analysis of the line in the debate.

Newt during the debate (emphasis added in the quotes shown below):

“Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes,” he answered. “Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States? The current administration tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process… Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East.”

Romney countered:

“The last thing [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who’s a historian, but someone who is also running for president of the United States stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in… his neighborhood,” Romney said. “And if I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that I don’t say anything like this. Anything I say that can affect a place with — with rockets going in, with people dying. I don’t do anything that would harm that — that process. And, therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together because we’re partners. I’m not a bomb-thrower. Rhetorically or literally.”

When Diane Sawyer asked who won the debated between them, Santorum cited Romney:

“I think you have to speak the truth. But you have to do so with prudence.. it’s a combination,” Santorum said. “I sat there and I listened to both. I thought they both… made excellent points. But we’re in a real life situation. This isn’t an academic exercise… We have an ally here that we have to work closely with. And I think Mitt’s point… was the correct one. We need to be working with the Israelis to find out, you know what? Is this a wise thing for us to do? To step forward and to engage this issue? Maybe it is. My guess is at this point in time, it’s not. Not that we shouldn’t tell the truth, but we should be talking to our allies. It’s their fight.”

Newt’s second gafferiffic moment came when talking about Iran he said, “If we do survive…” it will be because of people like Rick Santorum, tipping his hat to him. Survive? It’s Middle East dog whistle stuff that matches his dream of John Bolton as his secretary of state. Establishment Republicans will be downing antacids like candy on this one.

The other effective candidate was Ron Paul. Romney tipped his hat to Paul’s supporters. Perry tipped his hat to him on the Federal Reserve. Newt tipped his as well. While Paul just continued to illustrate and proclaim his constancy. Watch his numbers, too.

After last night, more than ever before, Iowa is anybody’s ballgame.

Well, it’s not Romney’s, and I don’t think it’s Newt’s either, though he clearly has perfect pitch with right wing primary voters, while getting a thumbs down from the conservative intelligentsia. But it’s anyone’s guess who wins it after last night, with it really about who has the more sophisticated caucus goers, because it’s never easy inside that voting brawl.

“I think Obama won tonight.” – Al Gore on CurrentTV (The only network to do live analysis after the debate.)

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

The Things Newt Says

By on 10 December 2011

A classic Newt bomb:

“I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state,” Gingrich said in the interview. “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community.”

Oh, but not to worry. He still supports a Palestinian state.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Progressive Notes: Cuomo to Tax Rich, San Fran to Hike Min. Wage, Death Penalty Repeal Laws Spread and Other Doings

By on 10 December 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Good news: OWS has pushed Governor Cuomo (D,NY) to agree to a tax on the rich and a cut on taxes for middle class New Yorkers. It will raise 2 billion in revenue. Cuomo has faced protestors at events now for months. Clearly the dynamic is changing to a progressive narrative.

In Maine Sen. Snowe deserves a strong challenge. But the DSCC hasn’t invested and instead is begging poor Sen. Ben Nelson (D,Ne) to run again in a deeper red state. Maine is blue and Snowe has angered many with her DADT repeal antics and move toward austerity. The DSCC didn’t push for a candidate, but progressives have and got two so far. Here is one great guy- State Rep. Hinck:

Hinck, who represents Portland in the Maine House of Representatives, said he thinks Snowe’s voting record is a key to convincing voters it’s time for a change when they go to the polls next year.

“She makes some really bad votes that cost us a lot,” Hinck said in a sit-down interview with The Portland Daily Sun this week. “So I may as well say, for example, in the last 10 years, I would have voted against the Iraq War; I would have voted against the Bush tax cuts; I would have voted against Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit). I am quite certain, I know that was my position when each of those came up. When the war came up, I was a lawyer in private practice, but I joined a rally and march in the streets of Portland, with my daughter, who was only five years old, I think. I saw her start to chant, ‘No blood for oil.’”

Congress “bends people,” Hinck said, and suggested Snowe can be tripped up on conflicting votes.

“She is kindly, and she has an impressive resume, and we’ve known her for a long time. When you’re wrong you shouldn’t be re-elected,” he said.

San Francisco adopts a 10 dollar minimum wage and it goes into effect January 1. San Fran is way ahead of DC. The voters got the power:

Thanks to a 60% voter approval rate, SF passed Proposition L in 2003. This provision requires that the city enforce an increase in the minimum wage every year that correlates with inflation. That means, if you want to get down to dollars and cents, that this New Year’s Day, SF’s hourly minimum wage will rise from $9.92 to $10.24.

Compare this wage to that of the state and you may see San Francisco workers as lucky: California’s legal minimum wage is $8 an hour. Now compare it to the federal minimum of $7.75. Luckier still!

After the Troy Davis affair momentum is building in states to abolish the death penalty. Cited are financial costs to maintain death rows and the moral questions being raised. Polling is at a 39 year low in support of the death penalty and many states have efforts to abolish it:

Connecticut advocates say — several members have said they would be willing to support abolition after the sentencing and Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy has said he would sign the bill into law.

“If those senators keep their word, then we will be able to get it passed,” Ben Jones, executive director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, told POLITICO. “2012 will be the year.”

That optimism is mirrored in Maryland, where Democratic Delegate Sandy Rosenberg said he believes that as long as their repeal bill makes it to the floor, state legislators will vote to end the practice. Gov. Martin O’Malley, Democrat and staunch supporter of repeal, has said he will sign such a bill.

“We believe that our count, after the election of 2010, we have the votes, we have the constitutional majority in both houses for repeal,” Rosenberg said. “The key is getting a floor vote in the Senate. We do know we have the votes on the floor, but as of now, we do not have the votes in committee.”

In Kansas, Republican state senator Carolyn McGinn is leading the call for an end to the death penalty. Donna Schneweis of the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty noted that the issue has taken hold across the political spectrum: A bill that would have abolished capital punishment in 2010 garnered support from conservatives, moderates and progressives, but ultimately failed on a 20-20 vote in the state senate. In 2012, supporters say they’ll try again.

Another state that’s looking to make moves in 2012 is Ohio, where a new judicial study commission is looking at how the death penalty is working in the state and there’s currently a bill that would replace executions with life without parole. A state senator is planning to introduce a companion measure, Kevin Werner of Ohioans to Stop Executions added.

And California has the most watched repeal effort, with a possible November 2012 referendum in the works:

In California — where capital punishment was passed by the voters over 30 years ago and can only be repealed by referendum — the state’s painful budgetary crisis spells a great opportunity for success in 2012, according to those pushing the measure.

Natasha Minsker of the SAFE California Campaign, the group leading the effort to qualify a measure for the state’s November ballot replacing the death penalty with life without possibility of parole, said a recent study that found California has spent roughly $4 billion to carry out 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978 has fired up the repeal effort in a state plagued by terrible financial problems. The staggering $4 billion figure comes from all costs funding the death penalty system in California, including the trials, appeals, death-row housing, healthcare of inmates and the executions themselves.

“More voters now realize that the death penalty is enormously expensive, and we’re in the worst budget crisis ever in California history,” Minsker told POLITICO. “With the economic crisis right now — that Californians are living everyday with terrible budget cuts — people are much more likely to pay attention to the fact that we are wasting money on the death penalty.”

The campaign has collected 240,000 signatures — California requires 504,000 valid signatures for the referendum to make it onto the ballot — and is aiming to submit about 750,000 by the end of February. And, Minsker added, they’ve already got $1.2 million in their coffers from contributions that ranged in size from $5 to $500,000.

In nut watch Governor Rick Perry dances with Jews to appeal to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Yes dances. Oy:

Read full story · Comments { 1 }