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

“Radical reform will originate only from ordinary citizens” – Greider

By on 02 December 2011

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

In this Two Parties, Too Few Options series post, thoughts from a couple of people about where our political system is today, then another look at Americans Elect, which I’ve mentioned before.

First, William Greider, at The Nation:

Regular politics in Washington now resembles an ecological dead zone where truth perishes in a polluted environment. Democrats and Republicans shadowbox over their concocted fiscal crisis, neither willing to tell voters the truth, both eager to avoid blame for the damage they are doing to the country.

Out in the streets, meanwhile, the contrast with brain-dead politics is exhilarating. In Occupy Wall Street, we are witnessing a rare event—the birth of a social movement. …

… radical reform will originate only from ordinary citizens—not policy experts and their Wall Street supporters, who led the nation into ruin. The movement can inspire the people to become creative citizens again. Are we up to it? Let us find out. Let the democratic conversations begin.

A second voice already in the conversation is that of Don Smith, at OpEdNews:

On Occupying the Democratic Party

… There are many progressive Dems, and the populace support many progressive policies. But so far neither conditions nor the grassroots Dems have forced the Democratic leadership to stop selling out, while the GOP has become even more conservative and more uncompromising.
But reforming the Democratic Party will still be easier than starting a viable third party. …

As Randi Rhodes said on air: ‘Who’s more powerful? One voter? Or 3000 non-voting protesters?’

One can also ask: ‘Who’s more powerful? One thousand people who belong to a non-viable third-party (or advocacy group)? Or one person who works to elect progressive party leaders in the Democratic Party?’

Good arguments can be made that “reforming the Democratic Party will … be easier than starting a viable third party.” But equally as good arguments can be made that 1) it isn’t just the Democratic Party which must be reformed, but the Two Party Corporate System. And 2) given the years over which the Democratic Party has consistently moved to the Right and during which corporate influence has overtaken both parties, how much “easier” would it be, really, for reform to take place? How do you get out of the cycle of flipping between Republican and Democratic “majorities” and WH occupants, by working within the system that the Duopoly controls and maintains? Is it really “easier” to reform this entrenched system, than to build a “viable third party”? Maybe, but maybe not. Neither will be easy. And in either case, from my perspective, it’s going to require efforts from within and from without of the Democratic Party, or more realistically, the Two Party System.

Okay, that’s me, and no surprise to anyone who’s read more than a sentence or two I’ve written. Now to another quick look at Americans Elect, which continues to get attention as it makes gains in getting on state ballots. I’ll acknowledge a good deal of skepticism about AE, in large part because of how it’s organized. From an early November NPR report, Nonprofit Seeks To Be New Political Force, Peter Overby identifies “Wall Street investor and philanthropist Peter Ackerman” as the chairman of AE.

Unlike the regular political parties, Americans Elect has no contribution limits for donors, and there’s no disclosure. Several months ago, it changed itself from a political committee to a ‘social welfare organization’ under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. …

Americans Elect says it has more than 3,000 donors. About a dozen have given at least $100,000 dollars. But only one is identified: Ackerman, the chairman, has put in $5 million.

There’s also this concern, which I saw at several places. Here, via Third Party Politics:

According to this story in the July 31 Christian Science Monitor, Elliot Ackerman, chief operating officer for Americans Elect, recently told the press that the group’s Candidate Certification Committee will ‘make sure we have candidates who bridge the center of American public opinion.’ This is the first indication that Americans Elect will filter candidates for its presidential nomination based on their ideas.

You can read about goals and process, and should you wish, sign up, at Americans Elect.

To learn more about specific candidates, go here. Among other things, you can check out the “Top National Matches,” the “Public figures whose views most closely match a national survey by Ipsos Public Affairs on priorities and answers to the core questions.”

The top five of the “national match”: Buddy Roemer (R), 74%; Dennis Ross (R), 74%; Trey Gowdy (R), 74%; Allen West (R), 73%; Ron Paul (R), 71%.

You can “track” candidates – and there’s a very long list – of your choice. With their “national match” ranking, the “most tracked”: Ron Paul (R) 71% (3,208); Barack Obama (D) 67% (1, 935); John Huntsman (R) 67 % (1,838); Buddy Romer (R) 74% (1069); Gary Johnson (R) 71% (849); Bernie Sanders (I) 64% (816); Al Franken (D) 69% (570); Dennis Kucinich (D) 62% (516); Mitt Romney (R) 58% (412); Newt Gingrich (R) 59% (408). Skipping further down, to look at other Republican wannabe’s, Herman Cain (R) 51% (329); Rick Perry (R) 50% (145); Rick Santorum 45% (45).

I’m sure I’m not the only one who notices that the top five “Matches” all identify as Republican. Which probably isn’t surprising, given the Rightward move of the nation. Nor am I the only one who wonders about the fact that an online only system leaves out a lot of people.

I have no idea how closely the “views” used in the “matching” reflect the thinking of anyone but the people who participated, and I certainly don’t know the “ultimate” goals of Ackerman and others. How much influence Americans Elect will ultimately have remains to be seen, of course. After some strong hinting, “Top Match” Buddy Roemer has announced he’s running for the AE spot, so we’ll see how that plays out in an online only process.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Apple’s Siri, Obama’s ‘Present,’ Mitt’s Flips

By on 01 December 2011

Petition to Apple: Siri Can’t Find Abortion Clinics in California?

Apple: Stop promoting anti-choice extremists. If a user asks for family planning services, they should be directed to a group that offers full services, like Planned Parenthood–not to a hard-right clinic with an extremist agenda. Siri, iPhone’s new voice assistant, won’t tell you where you can get an abortion or even emergency contraception–instead she’ll promote anti-abortion pregnancy “crisis” centers. But let’s say you need an escort service? Siri can help you with that, no problem.

If you didn’t see John King’s excellent take down of Apples “beta” baloney it was total and complete. Apple is scrambling like mad making excuses for their Siri disaster, a story Raw Story first broke. Whether it’s Apple or Barack Obama, it seems what matters to women becomes disposable when something becomes awkward for the establishment types, political or corporate, while Mitt Romney doesn’t think we should have any personal freedoms at all. However, there are some similarities between Obama and Romney that should make Democrats very uncomfortable.

Katha Pollitt’s post in The Nation this week serves as an uncomfortable reminder of Pres. Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dirty deal with Catholic bishops during the health care debate. It’s also a reminder that when Mr. Obama didn’t have to he helped make Bart Stupak a hero, which helped spur states across this country to strip women of rights won in the courts already, without directly challenging Roe v. Wade or that law’s foundation, Griswold, which came before.

One of the chapters in my new eBook, “Is Freedom Just for Men?,” takes on Democratic capitulation by Obama and Pelosi, which was made possible through the so-called progressive caucus that enabled them both and emboldened a new wave of anti-female laws that began a 21st century war on women. Of course, because my book is about the Hillary Effect, this chapter goes well beyond America’s borders and includes examples from around the world of what women are experiencing that answers the question conclusively, as well as the notion that feminism and the fight for women’s rights is anything but over.

One thing that Pollitt doesn’t mention is that the Catholic vote is incredibly important to Pres. Obama, though to think the bishops’ flock will vote for Barack Obama is ludicrous.

But to drive the point home on just how scurrilous Pres. Obama’s behavior has been toward women’s reproductive freedoms, all you need to do have done is read Colbert King when Obama later sold D.C. poor women down the river, too.

Congress used the budget negotiations to attach riders that prevent locally raised tax dollars from being used for reproductive services for low-income District women. Another provision forced a federally funded school-voucher program on the city.

If that weren’t galling enough, President Obama threw the city under the bus and bought the deal, telling GOP House Speaker John Boehner, “John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about that.” Boo-hoo. Like hell.

Like hell, indeed.

This mimics what Barack Obama did in Illinois by voting “present” over one hundred times, always to keep his political options open.

As an aside and an example of one difference between Mitt flip-flop Romney and Barack present Obama is Obama not taking a stand is a tactic that Romney didn’t use. It’s just too bad Romney is so gutlessly passionless he can’t stand up to defend his own political record as moving to a more conservative stance when he wasn’t the governor of a liberal state. It’s easy for someone with a modicum of political honesty.

It’s important to note that Barack Obama voting “present” on important issues is not exactly a moment in political courage either now is it? Nor is setting up women to lose reproductive health care rights won in the courts in the 1960s. Hey, but since the sixties has always made Obama queasy no one should be surprised.

The one thing women have to hold on to this time, however, is that in 2010 the female vote split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, which hadn’t happened in a long, long time. Obama’s base is also not nearly as excited as the right is for 2012, with outside challengers to the big two parties destined to rise up over the next 6 months. So, Pres. Obama needs women to get reelected, Democratic women who believe freedom is not just for men and that laws on the books to protect a woman’s individual freedoms matter.

So, can Pres. Obama afford to side with Catholic bishops over women on reproductive health care access yet again? We’re about to find out.

After all, it’s wonderful that the Catholic health care industry supported Pres. Obama on the health care fight, but these anti-female freedom voters are very unlikely to vote for his reelection in 2012. That really is the only thing that matters to Barack Obama today and as we’ve found before, Mr. Obama is nothing if not opportunistic with his principles.

It’s always about whether it benefits him, just like any other politician.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Gandhi, Frank Luntz and Occupying

By on 01 December 2011

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

I’ll get to Gandhi’s words in a bit, but first, the suggestions of Frank Luntz to the question: “How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?” It’s worth a few minutes, in part, for entertainment, and in part because the suggestions surely do represent the thinking of some on the Right. And probably some on the Left.

Actually, I think Democrats need to be asking a similar question, and come up with better answers than avoid and ignore; express “shared concern” but provide little to no actions to address said concerns; and taking the words of the Occupation and trying to cram them into a campaign sound bite.

For now, get yourself ready for “how Republicans can do a better job of talking about OWS.” From Chris Moody, via Yahoo News:

The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street? …

‘I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,’ said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. ‘They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.’

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about ‘income inequality’ and ‘paying your fair share.’

Sitting in on the session, Yahoo News identified ten suggestions.

1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’
… we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market’ … .
2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’
4. Don’t talk about ‘jobs.’ Talk about ‘careers.’
5. Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’
6. Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’
7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’
8. Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’
9. Don’t ever ask anyone you want them to ‘sacrifice.’
10. Always blame Washington.

Isn’t suggesting “don’t say capitalism” blasphemous? More significantly, here is what Think Progress had to say:

Frank Luntz is no minor pollster. … That Luntz is admitting the impact of Occupy Wall Street and the 99 Percent and telling closed-door meetings of Republicans that it frightens him is a huge victory for the movement.

Moving from the ridiculously revealing (I kept looking to see if he actually said this) to the thoughtful, about Gandhi, from OWS, regarding an action tonight:

A General Assembly at 10:30 PM at Lincoln Center. Join us in an open conversation about the effects of increased privatization and corporatization of all aspects of society, and the use of nonviolent civil disobedience around the world to reclaim the commons.

Composer Philip Glass will join the general assembly and mic-check a statement.

It is no doubt timely that Philip Glass’ opera ‘Satyagraha’ – which depicts Gandhi’s early struggle against colonial oppression in South Africa — should be revived by the Metropolitan Opera in 2011 … .

Satyagraha is a Sanskrit word meaning ‘truth-force,’ and we at Occupy Wall Street, by exercising tactics of nonviolent direct action inspired by those championed by Gandhi, have insisted that the truth be told: … We have lost homes, jobs, affordable education, natural resources, and access to public space.

Also today, via OWS’ Twitter feed:

QOWSt World AIDS Day rally starts at 10AM in Liberty Plaza NYC. Followed by march and direct action. …

ByeByeDWI RT @BostonGlobe: #OccupyBoston and the city are headed to court today at 9 a.m. b.globe.com/tipGRi #OWS

And this, via OWS:

The NYC Central Labor Council has called a march on Dec 1st for Jobs and Economic Fairness BOLD that’s ‘not just for the labor movement, but for everyone who is frustrated and worried about the growing economic disparity in this country. It’s for anyone who has ever agonized about finding a job, paying for college, meeting a mortgage payment, or how to buy enough food for dinner.’ #OWS will be there.

And thanks to Art for this Occupy DC Action Alert regarding the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, via Huffington:

What – Occupy DCCC
When – 5 PM, Thursday, December 1
Where – Gathering at McPherson Square, marching to 727 15th St NW

On the two-month anniversary of Occupy DC representing the voices and interests of the 99%, we will march on a Democratic Party fundraiser charging $5,000-$75,000 per dinner. This elitist event is indicative of how the Democrats represent a major part of our government’s failure to represent 99% of its citizenry.

The Huffington piece included this:

A Democratic operative, responding to the action alert, noted that there may be a political upside: Republicans will have a harder time accusing Washington Democrats of orchestrating the Occupy movement.

Thanks to Taylor for this one, from Politico:

A source sends over the transcript of an interesting robocall made last week, talking up the Occupy movement but without a group taking credit for it:

‘This Thanksgiving we need to think about what ‘Liberty and justice for all’ really means. Consider these facts: the big banks have foreclosed our homes, shipped our jobs overseas and are sitting on over $10 trillion while our nation goes bankrupt. … We the 99 percent can make a difference. Call the White House, Congress and City Hall. Tell them that liberty and justice for all means breaking up the big banks and jailing the Wall Street con men.’

It’s rare for the group behind a robocall like this one to avoid taking credit for it, and raises the question of who’s spending money promoting Occupy.

I’ve seen guesses about who’s behind the calls ranging from Obama to the Koch brothers to “terrorists.”

Personally, I’ll keep hoping for more “truth-force.”

(Poster via OccupyDesign)

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

The 2012 Free-for-all Begins

By on 01 December 2011

Kristen Long - Politico

Pres. Obama’s approval ratings show he’s the most vulnerable incumbent president in modern times. But you’ll excuse me if I demur on any prospects of Republicans taking Pennsylvania, which never happens in presidential elections. However, a new element in the mix is finally floating to the top and that’s the real appearance of outsider candidates that could put the 2012 race into a 1912 Bull Moose or 1948 Strom-Dixiecrat – Wallace-Progressive Party free-for-all territory.

Rocky Anderson is reportedly starting a third party:

Disgusted with what he calls the corrupting influence of corporate money and militarism in politics, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is launching a new national political party and will likely be its presidential nominee.

“The end game is changing public policy in the interest of the people of this country. It’s changing our government,” Anderson said. “This is about taking on the two corporatist, militarist parties and in the process bringing the people of this country together so they can see that their interests, by and large, are really aligned.”

Anderson said he will likely be a candidate for the presidential nomination for the new party — which is yet to be named. He said the formation of the party will be announced next week “and shortly thereafter, I’ll be announcing my candidacy.” He has already started filling out paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee. [read more]

Buddy Roemer will also seek the Americans Elect nomination:

Manchester, NH- Today I officially announce that I will seek the Americans Elect nomination as a proud Republican but as an even prouder American. Our country is on the wrong track and Americans are in search of real leadership. Leadership that isn’t predetermined by lobbyists, political parties, or Wall Street executives, but leadership that is free to do what is right for the citizens of our great nation.

Jon Huntsman is being coy about possibly running as an independent, which was seen earlier this week in a Boston Globe interview, though I remain very skeptical he will. However, keeping his Republican powder dry for another run in 2016 seems foolish, because even though you can’t predict politics 3 months out let alone four years, the big guns that didn’t run this time, people like Chris Christie, will come in with a lot of support from the start.

The one thing missing from this outsider push for the presidency is a woman. There remains a conventional streak among female politicians, likely because our American system of power is tilted decidedly toward men, that makes a woman’s entry into this independent fray not only unlikely, but non-existent.

It’s one reason why I tip my hat to Conservatives4Palin, who raised the paltry sum required to run an ad in Sioux City, Iowa, encouraging their candidate to “Run, Sarah, Run.”

The Sarah Palin in the ad below is trying to reclaim where she began in Alaska, as an outsider standing up against crony capitalism, which is where she made her last mark this past Labor Day in her last big speech. Having been chewed up and spit out by the Republican Party boys’ club machine, even if her historic vice presidential candidacy put her on the map, which I talk about in my book The Hillary Effect. Sarah Palin is certainly no worse than Newt.

That may not sound like much, but in the current Republican circus, Newt has become the latest frontrunner standard.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

The Scurrilously Unprincipled Newt

By on 01 December 2011


Newt’s meeting on Monday with The Donald will be a coming together of two like scoundrels.

With Barack Obama’s approval the lowest of any modern American president, a dubious distinction now that he’s sunk lower than Carter, who the Republican nominee is matters more than ever before.

Ron Paul isn’t going to let Newt Gingrich sweep into Iowa, but also New Hampshire, and take him out without a fight based on facts and Newt’s history.

It’s an easy, but dirty job, but someone had to do it. Newt Gingrich’s total lack of character, principle and passionate opportunism is rivaled by no other Republican. However, his rise proves what a salesman he is and just how desperate the right is to find their un-Romney, even if Gingrich is worse.

The National Review Online helps out:

August 30, 2004: [...] “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”

In June 2005… “[...] supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.” [...]

Also that month, he took a surprising tone at a “debate” with Sen. John Kerry on the topic of climate change.

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.

In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”

In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation…

Politicians are notoriously chameleon when it comes to their own survival. However, in his campaign for president Newt Gingrich has proven that he’s so out of touch on his own legacy as to be a danger to this nation if he’d ever get the power of the presidency.

With Pres. Obama at 30% approval among independents, thinking about the alternative, even if I don’t believe Newt Gingrich is electable in the general, is something that requires preemptive political destruction.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }