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 | January, 2012

CNN: Romney ‘Shellacks’ Gingrich in Florida

Update: Introduced by Ann Romney, who is the best thing in the campaign, Mitt Romney finally decided to make a speech talking to the conservative base. It was exactly what he needed to do and it was good for him. Unfortunately, he couldn’t resist using the word “appease,” as well as a couple of other tone deaf words. Romney talked directly to the camera and made his first attempt to bring people on board. He also made the point to say that Republicans will be united in the fall.

Update 2: Newt Gingrich was the definition of a classless sore loser. He squealed against the establishment “in both parties.” Gingrich showed the depth and breadth of his grandiosity, especially after such a crushing defeat. It would have been surreal, but this man is bone-deep angry and he obviously intends to burn the Republican Party down around him if he doesn’t prevail.

Update 3: Ron Paul shows how it’s done, opening with a grace note to the winner Mitt Romney. He said he congratulated Romney, then told him he’d see him in the caucus states. The crowd around him is positively raucous. It’s impossible not to appreciate Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Update 4: Earlier in the evening Rick Santorum spoke from Nevada. He’s clearly running for the vice presidency.

_____original post below_____


“Mitt Romney is winning where the people live,” is how CNN’s John King described it.

Romney and Gingrich split the Tea Party 40% to 38% in Florida.

Gingrich won only by 3 points with evangelicals; among non-evangelicals Romney “shellacked,” John King’s words, Gingrich.

Gingrich is fleeing to Nevada.

They’ll meet Ron Paul in that state, with Jon Ralston saying he’s more organized than before, but where Mitt Romney has home court advantage, even if it is a caucus state.

The Republican Party in Nevada is, well… let’s just say weak.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Nancy Reagan Rejects Newt’s ‘Legitimate Heir’ Claim

…and so continues Newt Gingrich’s very bad day.

He can take heart on one thing. DNI James R. Clapper Jr. has added fuel to Gingrich’s Iranian rhetorical fire, which will make the Republicans day. From the Washington Post today:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

Maybe that will take the sting out of Mrs. Reagan’s slap.

Few reporters have better sources inside Reagan World than NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who goes way back. With Mrs. Reagan still alive and undoubtedly very protective of the Reagan legacy as she sees it, there was little doubt that Newt’s claims wouldn’t go unchallenged.

From NBC’s First Read:

Calling himself “the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement,” Newt Gingrich recently cited a 1995 speech by Nancy Reagan in which the former First Lady said that her husband “passed on the torch” to him.

… But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports, Gingrich appears to be taking that comment out of context.

Sources close to Nancy Reagan said the speech itself was written by the host at the Goldwater Organization – where Mrs. Reagan delivered the remarks – and that she was referring generally to Congress and not specifically to the former Speaker, Mitchell reported on her MSNBC program.

Mrs. Reagan isn’t going to let anyone use Ronnie’s legacy for their own aggrandizement, certainly not a political grifter like Newt, with his hangers-on like Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Leaked Syrian Report at Foreign Policy

“What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people,” said Malek. “The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.” – report by Column Lynch

After calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, which was ignored, the Arab League also called off its mission to monitor the carnage inside Syria this past Saturday. Considering they reportedly didn’t have enough armored vehicles and too few bullet-proof vests, with the details from Turtle Bay’s Column Lynch about the Chinese passing the walkie-talkies, it would be laughable if the situation hadn’t been so deadly.

Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi was in charge of the mission, which is part of the problem. Lynch has a good rundown on the general:

The mission’s international standing was also diminished by the selection of its monitoring chief — General Al-Dabbi, a close advisor of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Al-Dabbi also served as a top military officer in Darfur, Sudan, at a time when the government was organizing local militia, known as the Janjaweed, that were involved in mass killings of civilians in the region. An Algerian member of the Arab team, Anwar Malek, resigned in protest, telling Al Jazeera that the mission was a “farce.”

The leaked report is available over at Lynch’s Turtle Bay. The Europeans are unimpressed by it, while the Russians and the Security Council are in it over the bloodletting in Syria. One thing is clear after reading the report and that is the Syrian government seems to have had no intention of allowing it to succeed. From Lynch:

On Jan. 18, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby ordered the suspension of the organization’s observer mission, its first major experiment in human rights monitoring. He claimed that the escalation of violence had undercut its ability to do its job.

But a confidential account of the organization’s mission, signed by the monitor’s controversial chief and obtained by Turtle Bay, shows that the Arab monitors were hobbled from the beginning by a shortage of equipment — and by what Al-Dabbi describes as a ferocious Syrian media disinformation campaign against the monitors and him personally. “The credibility of the mission has been undermined in the minds of Arab and foreign viewers,” he wrote.

[...] “The mission…sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured [by] Syrian citizens,” Al-Dabbi wrote. “Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes.” That said, he is surprisingly candid and critical of the observer mission’s ability to perform well the task required of them.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Mitt’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Moment



A confident Mitt Romney sings “America the Beautiful,” and very recently Obama riffed on Al Green.

More and more polls show two things: (1) tonight Mitt Romney will win Florida and (2) Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will combined get more votes. – Erick Erickson

There’s absolutely no reason Newt or Rick Santorum should get out after Florida.

Some delegate math: After tonight, just 115 delegates will have been awarded — out of 2,286 total delegates. So just 5% – Mike Murray, NBC News tweet

Neither the flaming Democratic rich man hyperbole about Mitt Romney or the Republican flailing to find a message against Obama, means a thing this far out.

We’ll still likely be left choosing between a gazillionaire and a millionaire, both backed by corporations and Wall Street, which is the contest fitting where American politics stands today.

It’s why Occupy remains the wild card worth watching. Obama can benefit from it, as it nails Mitt Romney if he’s seen through that lens. However, if Romney figures out how to harness the message and use it to market himself as a turn-around expert, you never know what can be sold to the American voter out of options.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The $825,400 Man

Between July 1 and Dec. 31, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow collected more than $825,400, ending the year with nearly $674,000 cash on hand, according to disclosures filed over night with the Federal Election Commission. – Stephen Colbert’s FEC report: Big money!


Stephen Colbert is the only man anywhere near politics that has political ads worth watching today.

Chuck Todd got bent out of shape about it last week.

“He is making a mockery of the system… Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that feels like he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican.” – Chuck Todd, NBC News

Twisting himself into a knot to be fair and balanced, Todd sounded uncharacteristically dense.

The bookend is reading Mark Halperin’s debate scorecard that isn’t really about the debate, as he admits. Halperin’s grading farce is geared to assessing an evening’s performance with how it could impact the horse race, but always with an eye toward his own access to the politician.

If there’s anything we should all agree upon is that the cesspool of payoffs to candidates through Super PACS locks Americans out of the process, while exposing television viewers in states where the primary season passes to mind-numbing ads of irrefutable charges. The sheer density makes it so.

Stephen Colbert has done more to expose the Super PAC sickness than Obama, Romney, McCain, Feingold, Gingrich or Chuck Todd and Mark Halperon combined.

Looking at Stephen Colbert, watching and listening to him, I’m not at all convinced we’d be worse off with a regular stiff, even a comic, at the helm. They at least might know how unseemly it is to pack your administration with Goldman Sachs cronies while railing about big bank and Wall Street influence.

Some Americans get how totally screwed up our political process is today and they’re laughing at all the insiders through their wallets. In a tough economy that’s quite a message they’re sending.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Who Are We Today?

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

The Tea Party Slideth

Occupy is what’s in today.

The Tea Party has energy, but it’s power is long gone.

That’s why I love the “Take Down the Tea Party Ten” campaign, which I came across just today. It’s sponsored by Credo.

The first six lawmakers targeted by the group are Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Allen West (R-Fla), Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), and Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.). Four more will be chosen by CREDO’s members.

… “We’re taking the traditional super PAC model and turning it on its head — to put power back in the hands of the people, instead of consolidating it in the hands of corporate executives and the ultra-wealthy,” said Becky Bond, president of the CREDO super PAC. “Where Karl Rove and the Koch brothers can use shady money from a few hidden donors to fund a barrage of TV attack ads, this super PAC will empower local voters and our list of 2.5 million activists to build a grassroots campaign that is as hard hitting as it is progressive.

Laura Ingraham admitted on Sunday the Tea Party doesn’t even have that much power today.

[The Tea Party] don’t have the power that they thought they had, perhaps,” Ingraham said. “I mean, Romney is not a tea party candidate, and they’re talking about 27 percent of the Republican Party that still believe it’s tea party infused. The tea party, they have a lot of energy but you know … more of a moderate view of conservatism seems to get nominated every time. And that’s just a fact. The tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe.” – Laura Ingraham: ‘Tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe’

Maybe that means these “Tea Party 10″ can be taken out, because anyone who wants to weaken the definition of rape shouldn’t be in the U.S. Congress.

Can’t we all at least agree on that?

Speaking of Tea Party, have you noticed that Dana “drop trou” Loesch hasn’t been on CNN since she made the offensive remark? I’m sure we all eagerly await her return, but for now, Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party co-founder, is taking her place and doing a fine job, too.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Police use tear gas, beanbag projectiles and tasers on Oakland, DC occupiers

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

Oakland and DC were the sites of another round of arrests. Other Occupy sites rallied in support. See here and here.

There’s a sense that these Occupy actions, and city responses, while significant in themselves, are also a sign of things to come. A “Spring Uprising” is one phrase I’ve seen.

Earlier I wrote about steps Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking in preparation for the G8 / NATO Summit in May, which are not that out of line with what’s been happening for years. Protests are restricted to specific, out of sight, places. Protestors are “kettled.” Sometimes the next step is arrests, and that’s included arrests of appropriately credentialed media. All of this was seen in one or both of the DC and Oakland Occupier and police actions over the weekend.

Some background, from TruthOut, published on January 28:

LA Police Department Conducts Joint Exercises with the Military

… The LA Police Department … and the U.S. military conducted joint ‘tactical exercises’ in downtown LA this week. One Black Hawk … and four OH-6 choppers … flew over the city during the exercise. …

‘The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great Los Angeles area,’ the release stated.’ …

Joint military exercises have also been conducted over Boston, Massachusetts and Little Rock, Arkansas over the past six months.

The article, by Dan Bacher, includes analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act, and ties the joint operations to

… the repression of the Occupy movement by police departments throughout the nation.

One other bit of background, for Oakland, from Huffington:

Oakland Police Department Only Weeks Away From Being Placed Into Federal Control

Nearly a decade after the city of Oakland was first threatened with losing control of its police force, Judge Thelton Henderson has severely curtailed the independence of the Oakland Police Department, saying that it could placed under federal receivership as soon as this March.

As best as I can tell from reading multiple descriptions and reports about what happened in Oakland, there were examples of both those among the Occupiers and those among the Oakland PD who broke their own rules. Estimates ranged from 1000 to 2000 protestors, across the events of the day, with about 400 total arrests. The day began with the well publicized – including a letter to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan – efforts to “re-purpose” a building, abandoned for six years, as an Occupied “community center.” After being blocked from doing that, the actions moved into other parts of the city.

For a variety of coverage, read Mother Jones; LA Times; Occupy Oakland; OWS; News Dissector; USA Today; NY Times via TruthOut; Reuters; AP via OWS.

For some Occupiers, who threw objects at the police, broke into City Hall and reportedly engaged in some vandalizing, it was a serious break of the non-violence which has largely defined the movement. For some Oakland Police officers, it was a serious disregard of the rules they’re suppose to follow, reportedly including illegal use of batons and numerous uses of unnecessary force in general – tear gas; smoke grenades and bean bag projectiles among other things.

Mayor Quan, unsurprisingly, strongly supported the actions of police officers, though the following, from the AP article above, is interesting:


Quan blamed the destruction on a small ‘very radical, violent’ splinter group within Occupy Oakland.

A few people – for whatever motives – can use violence to the detriment of many others. And those “few” can be both police and protestor. That the arrest of even credentialed journalists – see Gavin Aronsen’s “Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland” at Mother Jones — add another serious dimension. As do NDAA and some city mayor’s working with Homeland Security and the military.

In DC today, the story continues to unfold, as the National Park Service distributed flyers, stating they will begin to clear the two Occupy camps today. From OpEdNews:

It took just 72 hours for the National Park Service and their Director, Jonathan Jarvis, to cave-in to Republican pressure to remove the Occupy protesters who are camping at Freedom Plaza and McPherson Park. …

Despite Director Jarvis’ statements to Congress that there had been no less than two previous long-term encampments on Washington DC property the National Park Service bowed to Republican pressure. Vehement support for the Occupiers was given by committee Democrats including Eleanor Holmes Norton, whose district these camps are in, and Elija Cummings, the ranking member on the committee.

And yes, I notice the focus in this statement is pro-Democratic, anti-Republican. I don’t generalize from that, however, to conclude Occupy as a whole is signaling a change in its take on electoral politics in general.

Danny Schechter has been covering the Occupy movement from very early on. After the events in Oakland on Saturday, Schechter wrote:

One thing is clear already: if this illegitimate wave of repression is allowed to stand. if the powers-that-be succeed in suppressing or marginalizing this new movement. if people are once again ‘penned in-both literally and symbolically-things will be much worse.

What Occupiers, 99%-ers, and others do; and what mayors, cities and police departments, as well as state and federal governments, decide to do, are obviously central to where things are come the Spring Uprising. Lennon’s words still seem pertinent.

( We’re Here To Help poster via Occupy Pix
Occupy Oakland Kettled via OWS
Lennon Quote via OWS News )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?

The answer is simple. Because no Republican or Democratic politician has the courage to challenge any church today. E.J. Dionne reveals why:

That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.

… Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

What Mr. Dionne reveals is that “Catholic allies” are more important than the integrity of protecting the individual person against the institution. The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly.

Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” an argument Russ Douthat makes today in the New York Times, what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions.

Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men.

One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives.

This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette… – Business Insider

I’m a rebel Episcopalian that now relies on daily meditation as my spiritual bedrock. I won’t take a back seat to any fundamentalist or evangelical or Catholic on spirituality. However, any person’s preferences in private should have no sway in public policy matters.

Since the Catholic Church is clearly encouraging it’s parishioners to wage a political campaign against this decision there should be substantive questions raised as to why this religious organization deserves protected status under the IRS code.

From Catholic News in November 2011:

“The law says that organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes charities and churches, may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.

That means no endorsements, checklists, guides promoting one candidate over another or sample ballots by tax-exempt parishes and organizations or their publications.

But it does not prevent religious leaders or members of other tax-exempt organizations from speaking out on the issues, organizing voter registration drives or nonpartisan educational forums or publishing candidates’ responses to a questionnaire as long as the questions cover a broad range of issues and do not reflect any bias.

As you’ll see from the letter below, provided by Business Insider, there is nothing nonpartisan about it.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This article has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Hillary Never Said ‘All the Way to the Convention!’

Gingrich is making the case that Romney can’t get a majority at the convention, his small circle of advisers are already eyeing favorable states in March and April, and those close to the former back-bench bomb thrower are testifying to his legendary perseverance. – Newt Gingrich’s long march, by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman

Newt’s clinging to NewsMax. Their “Insider Advantage Poll” is propping him up the day before Florida in hopes that the bottom doesn’t drop out before voting tomorrow. If people start believing Romney is about to walk away with the state, leaners will bolt for Mitt, because no one likes to back a sure loser.

From Quinnipiac:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 – 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow’s election

However, if you’re listening to people on Newt world, none of this will matter. The cry today is all the way to the convention!

There’s no evidence yet that Newt Gingrich can amass 18 million votes, as Hillary did back in 2008. He’s a completely different type of candidate than Clinton, with only one casino banker, while Hillary had legions of fans and supporters. But on he trudges, with the help of Kelly Ann Conway, touting the south as his promised land. The biggest difference between Newt and Hillary is that never once was there any indication whatsoever that she would have taken her fight to the convention floor. It was never going to happen, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, getting vilified by Hillary fans for giving sound analysis that turned out to be true.

Of course, the cable yakkers tried hard to whip up a frenzy saying otherwise, as I recount in my book The Hillary Effect, with even the esteemed Rachel Maddow falling for this line, though she was hardly alone.

Newt Gingrich’s primary cry the day before Florida, however, is exactly that, threatening to start a war inside the Republican Party on the floor in Tampa.

“We have no evidence yet that Romney anywhere is coming close to getting the majority and I think when you take all of the non-Romney votes, it’s very likely that the convention will be a non-Romney majority and maybe a very substantial one. My job is to convert that into a pro-Gingrich majority.” – Newt Gingrich, via the Wall Street Journal

Make my year.

In the interim, Gingrich is spewing Adelson talking points to Jewish Floridians: “[Mitt Romney] eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.”

Wrenching voters out of their comfort zone one inflammatory statement at a time.

If the projected polling today is correct and Romney wins big in Florida, Newt’s viability will rest in Sheldon Adelson’s hands, because it’s clear the Republican establishment isn’t going to help and neither are their bankers.

What if Adelson folds? Newt’s never run a grass roots campaign in his life. He’s learning this anti-establishment schtick as he goes along. It’s just not clear whether his ego can survive being second to Santorum and Ron Paul.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Sheldon Adelson Couldn’t Buy Newt Florida

If you wanted to know the state of Newt Gingrich’s campaign right now all you had to do was watch Fred Thompson on Meet the Press on Sunday. With his hair slicked back and wisps of uncut frizz flipping out in the back, Thompson delivered his lines haltingly and with his head bowed, while focusing downward as he talked. I won’t get into the fantasy Thompson floated that if Republicans had held out during the government shutdown in the mid-90s they’d have… er, won. It was a tour de force whine from camp Gingrich about how big bad Mitt had played too dirty. Hypocrisy unlimited, the bellyaching stems from the reality that Newt can’t match Mitt’s money, because if he could he’d be doing the same thing. Anybody doubt that fact?

Favorite recent headline: Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida, an article by John Heilimann.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a weekend of trailing the former speaker to a series of events along the I-4 corridor, there was just no escaping that a campaign that was flying high (and even into outer space) ten days ago has now come crashing back to earth. At what was billed as a Hispanic town hall meeting at another church yesterday in Orlando, Gingrich was greeted by row after row of empty pews and maybe 40 voters in attendance. For a full hour after the scheduled starting time, Gingrich and his wife, Callista, sat outside, cloistered in his campaign bus — possibly sulking, possibly fuming at his campaign’s horrid advance work, and surely praying that a few more souls would show up. When Gingrich finally entered the building, it was announced that the event was a town hall no more; the candidate would speak briefly, then take pictures with the scant few who’d turned up. And “briefly” was an understatement: Standing behind a Lucite lectern, Gingrich talked for a bare eight minutes and eleven seconds, looking deflated and exhausted. By no small margin, it was the worst and saddest campaign event that I have witnessed in this presidential cycle.

Now all the talk in the political world is about how badly Newt Gingrich could get beat tomorrow, with everyone anticipating a large margin win by Mitt Romney.

A lot of Republicans are hoping for it and an end to the savage bloodletting, as well as the debates. Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press Sunday that they’ve got to end. Chris Wallace said the debates were “ridiculous,” “insane,” and “stupid” recently on a radio show. The next one is at the end of February, which will be a very long month for Newt Gingrich.

Sheldon Adelson bought Newt Gingrich South Carolina. What he’s gotten for his money is another story. It’s about Israel and Iran, but having a candidate in the race that can define the debate rightward where the Middle East is concerned.

RT @RyanLizza: Newt warning Iranians could easily blow up Jacksonville with nuclear weapon (via boat).

I retweeted the above to make the point. You may remember Gingrich saying the Palestinian people were “invented.”

We should all be thankful Mitt Romney’s rich, organized and that his campaign is not going to take their foot off Gingrich’s throat again.

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” – Zeke Miller, BuzzFeed

There’s no comfort when you look at Mitt Romney where the Middle East is concerned either. To say foreign policy isn’t his forte is an understatement. So with neoconservatives and John Bolton in the background, with Newt in cahoots with Adelson, it’s all very weirdly counterproductive for Israel and for the U.S. on the right.

Mr. Adelson and his wife were evidently cynical enough to believe that American Jews living in Florida would buy Newt’s message. It doesn’t look like it’s selling. The question is whether Adelson will keep the money flowing if Gingrich loses big in Florida, because where this race heads next depends on it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be



Sarah Palin rose to power in Alaska by taking on Republicans in her own state on ethics. It’s the very thing Tom Brokaw is talking about regarding Newt Gingrich in the Romney ad above, though Brokaw, and NBC are protesting, so I have no idea if the video will be available by the time you read this. The Romney hashtag for it is #Newtorious.

You don’t need partisan rhetoric or his scandals to fillet Newt Gingrich.

“They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that’s old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all this does, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media…” – Sarah Palin: Newt Gingrich’s secret weapon

If Sarah Palin were backing Rick Santorum she’d have some credibility, but by defending Newt Gingrich she reveals the hypocrisy at her core.

Stop and print the section in bold above. Sarah Palin is correct on this one point. But hearing Palin whine about the “politics of personal destruction” when she’s a master of it is a bit much.

Sarah Palin’s shift to propping up an ethics-challenged hypocrite like Newt Gingrich directly relates to her ineffectiveness with the wider public and why she can’t wage a successful run for president. After amassing incredible power in 2010, which I chronicled fairly on this site, at the Huffington Post and in my book, she’s squandered it with anyone but her faithful.

Newt’s problem is that Independents won’t go near him.

One reason Romney has been outperforming Gingrich in hypothetical match-ups against President Obama is due to independents. Now, both main Republicans are at a disadvantage. [...] For his part, Gingrich runs solidly the other way among these middle-of-the-roaders, at 20 percent positive, 58 percent negative. Romney, whom moderates rated about evenly throughout the fall and into early January, are now about 2 to 1 negative: 27 percent hold favorable views, 52 percent negative ones. – Washington Post

There are a lot of things that can be said and argued about Mitt Romney, starting with his austerity message, which is a killer for our economy. He’s been an awful candidate so far and is as unlikable as any candidate in recent memory, Democratic or Republican. His wealth in an Occupy era makes him a perfect whipping boy for Pres. Obama and the Democrats. However, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in his long business or political careers that points to ethics violations or that he was ineffective in his endeavors, both of which dog Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin has chosen to play defender of Newt Gingrich, the exact type of Republican she would have railed against once upon a time in Alaska, all so she can toot her Tea Party horn in the hopes of regaining relevancy and keeping the cash rolling in.

Hey, nothing wrong with that at all. Ann Coulter’s been doing successfully for years.

What’s convenient is the thousands of Palin fans who continue to help her, because she wouldn’t be newsworthy without them. She owes them everything, but she owes Newt, too.

Without Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin couldn’t stoke up the audience for her keynote CPAC speech next month.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Ever put a fortune into a company and then not know it?

In the CNN Thursday debate, Mitt Romney claimed he had no idea of his investment involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When confronted by Newt Gingrich over the fact that Romney poured 100s of thousands into a mutual fund that held Freddie and Fannie debt notes, among other government entities, Romney replied that he had no knowledge, because his money is in a blind trust.

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

Gingrich is about to go up with a brutal ad deconstructing the situation. Script:

Governor Mike Huckabee:

“If a man’s dishonest to get a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

Voice-over:

“What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election?”

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

“Romney said he has always voted Republican when he had the opportunity.”

“But in the 1992 Massachusetts Primary Romney had the chance to vote for George H.W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, but he voted for a liberal Democrat instead.”

Romney said his investments in Fannie and Freddie were in a blind trust.

But, as reported in the National Journal, Romney earned tens of thousands of dollars from investments NOT in a blind trust… …

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

The Miami Herald also has fact checked and it turns out Romney has folks who worked as consultants and lobbyists for the mortgage giants on his campaign team right now:

The Associated Press and Daily Caller report that top Romney advisers and surrogates were paid lobbyists and consultants for Freddie Mac and other interests in the thick of the housing crisis.

Among the consultant-lobbyists on Romney’s team: Former Rep. Susan Molinari and Vin Weber.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has responded to the allegation made by Gingrich. From the Boston Globe, the paper of record on all things Mitt:

The trustee who manages Romney’s money said those investments were made through a charitable trust “operated on a totally blind basis’’ that Romney did not control. He also said that the investment related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-public agencies that many conservatives blame for the housing crisis, has been sold.

“This investment, which has been sold, was not known to Governor Romney,’’ Brad Malt said in a statement. Although Romney’s financial disclosure forms do not list it as such, Malt said the fund was held within a charitable trust and has been managed “on a totally blind basis since 2002.’’

Mitt Romney in 1994: “The blind trust is an age old ruse.” See the video below from BuzzFeed.


Taylor Marsh contributed to this post.
Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Google’s New ‘Privacy’ Policy

Google is tracking you...

Don’t. Track. US.

It’s in response to Google’s new (ahem) privacy policy, which lands March 1, 2012.

Meanwhile, after Twitter announced it would agree to censoring tweets in some countries, a boycott call broke out.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Queer Talk: Mayors for Marriage Equality

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

Freedom to Marry, an organization working for marriage equality, recently announced a new campaign: Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. About 100 mayors – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – have signed on. The campaign is designed to reflect growing support for marriage equality, and put some pressure on others to join in the efforts.

From Chris Johnson, at Washington Blade:

Around 15 members of the coalition … spoke at a news conference at the Capital Hilton during the 89th Winter Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors about the importance of allowing gay couples to marry.

The coalition is chaired by Michael Bloomberg (New York City); Thomas M. Menino (Boston); Annise Parker (Houston); Jerry Sanders (San Diego) and Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles). It includes mayors of Lima, OH; Kalamazoo, MI; Kansas City, MO; Eugene, OR, and Franklinton, NC. Rahm Emanuel recently added Chicago to the list.

It doesn’t include Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings. Dallas is the largest city whose mayor hasn’t signed the pledge. GetEQUAL planned last night’s (January 27) rally outside Dallas City Hall, and according to the Dallas Voice, Rawlings is scheduled today to meet with 20-25 LGBT leaders, who said

… they’ve been very alarmed by the language and tone Rawlings has used in defending his decision not to sign the pledge in the media.

Most recently, on Wednesday, Rawlings told WFAA-TV that the marriage pledge … was an example of ‘getting off track’ and that the issue of marriage equality is not ‘relevant to the lion’s share of the citizens of Dallas.’

‘Sadly, I think the more he talks about this in the press, the more he digs in as completely out of touch,’ said Patti Fink, president of the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

There’s still a lot of that “out of touch-ness” around, unfortunately, though it continues to shrink. The stress on the bipartisan support would be important at any point, but coming in the midst of 2012 election rhetoric, it’s particularly significant. From the coalition of mayor’s:

We are honored to lead this bipartisan group of mayors who support ending marriage discrimination at all levels of government. While we will each have different strategies for pursuing that end, we all agree on the goal: securing the freedom to marry and upholding equal rights for all citizens.

All of which, of course, raises questions about President Obama, and where he is in his “evolving” position on marriage equality. I’m among those who don’t think he’ll announce he’s completed the process before November.

From WSJ:

When he ran for president in 2008, Mr. Obama opposed to gay and lesbian marriages. He has said the matter should be decided by each state—knowing that most states have banned the marriages. But he has also spoken warmly about those states that have legalized same-sex marriage … . He also directed his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal benefits for same-sex unions. The president has said his own views on marriage are evolving, leading many on both sides of the issues to conclude that he now supports marriage rights but is holding back for political reasons.

Maybe Mayor Rawlings, and President Obama, would be helped along by reading the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry statement, and the personal comments provided by some. Two examples, from the Washington Blade:

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who two years ago became the first openly lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city, talked about her own life experience as a reason for why same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Parker said she and her partner, Kathy Hubbard, on Monday celebrated their 21st anniversary. She also noted her 35-year-old son, whom she said was 16 and living on the Houston streets when they adopted him because he had been thrown by his family. Parker also said her two adopted daughters, who are now 16 and 21, had previously spent five years in foster care ‘with very few prospects of a loving, stable home.’

‘We had to navigate insurance challenges and custody challenges in the school districts,’ Parker said. ‘One simple thing would have made tremendous difference in the lives of my family and, truly, the lives of millions of Americans, and that is access to the rights and privileges of marriage.’

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, was also among those who appeared at the news conference to voice his support from marriage.

In 2007, Sanders made headlines when he reversed his position on marriage equality before signing a City Council resolution intended to overturn the city’s ban on same-sex marriage. The mayor gave a tearful speech in which he said he couldn’t tell his daughter Lisa that her same-sex relationship wasn’t as important as that of straight couple.

… ‘Fairness means giving people the same rights and treating them the same as everyone else,’ Sanders said. ‘There’s no such thing as fair enough; it’s either fair, or it’s not.’

I think a lot of people would agree with that. Including, I’d guess, Mildred Loving. I strongly encourage you to check out this story at Yahoo, “Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time.” It’s about Mildred and Richard Loving, whose 1958 marriage eventually resulted in a 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down laws which banned interracial marriage.

On the 40th anniversary of the ruling, (Mildred) Loving issued a statement that read, ‘I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life.’

I’ll never understand why some people treat equality as if there was only so much to go around.

(Freedom To Marry Logo via Freedom To Marry
Mayors For Marriage photo via Freedm to Marry)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Dash of Dan: Black Bottom Brownies

On the Dash of  Dan Facebook page, I posted a poll, asking how people like their brownies.

I find people fall into three categories, chewy, fudgy, or cakey.

What I like about this recipe, it’s mostly things you have already on hand in the kitchen and it takes a regular brownie and makes it a truly something special.

This is definitely a more cake-like brownie, although after a day the flavor deepens and it becomes more chocolatey and dense.

Recipe:

1 1/2 cups all purpose flour

1/2 tsp. baking powder

1/2 tsp. baking soda                  1 cup sugar

1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa   1 tsp. vanilla extract

1/2 tsp. salt                                  1 cup whole milk

6 Tbsp. vegetable oil

Topping:

4 oz. softened cream cheese

 1 egg, beaten

6 Tbsp. sugar

1/2 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips

Mix the topping together in a small bowl, and set aside

 

* Preheat oven to 400 degrees.

  1. Line a buttered  8-inch square baking pan with parchment (allowing an overhang)
  2. In a large bowl mix together flour, baking powder, baking soda, cocoa, sugar, and salt.
  3. In another bowl mix together milk, vanilla and oil. Pour onto the flour mixture and stir well until blended. Pour the brownie mixture into the prepared pan, smoothing out the edges.
  4. Take reserved topping and pour on top. With a knife “cut” the topping through the brownie. (This will get some of that topping inside those brownies!)
  5. Bake 20-25 minutes until a toothpick tested in the center of the brownies comes out clean. Let cool in the pan completely and remove by lifting with the parchment (there’s a use for that overhang!) Cut into 16 squares.

These brownies would be a welcome addition to any Superbowl Party.

I’ve also realized I have to come up with a dessert for the big game! (Of course I’ll be sharing that with you!)

And yes, the reason I’m watching the Superbowl; Madonna. Oh and the game. Yeah, the game.

Do you have a favorite get together dish for a game days? Do you have a dog in the football fight?

Let me know anything, in the thread below!

 

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Newt’s Rube

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. – Sarah Palin on Facebook

Let’s hope Republican primary voters actually listen to Sarah Palin. If she could push herself on to center stage it would be a whole new circus act.

Sarah Palin finding common cause with Newt Gingrich, a man who wouldn’t be giving her the time of day if conservative Republicans who actually served with Mr. Gingrich weren’t shunning him because they actually know what he’s like as a leader.

The Republican establishment is trying to get rid of Newt because they don’t want a Goldwater blowout in November, with their main concern the House, as well as Senate possibilities, because there are a lot of them who believe none of the current crop of candidates can beat Pres. Obama, which is understandable. A sitting president is tough to beat by a great candidate and these guys aren’t great.

If Mrs. Palin was making that point in this self-important Facebook rant, that there isn’t a candidate to beat Obama so Republicans need to open the primary back up, that would actually make sense. However, that’s not what she’s doing.

This is mostly about Sarah Palin finding a way to get into the action. Reading her Facebook post, half of it is a complete regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh’s talking points, with Palin providing spin that includes herself. If she becomes irrelevant she loses her Fox News Channel ticket and then what does she do?

What a script.

Mrs. Palin even adopted Newt Gingrich’s grandiose remembrances of history to make her point, which like Newt, revolves around her, written by her ego.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Narcissus was modest compared to these two.

Sarah and Newt, bookends of Ego’s library.


Read full story · Comments { 46 }

A Word About the ‘Israel Firster’ Debate

From Spencer Ackerman in The Tablet:

Some on the left have recently taken to using the term “Israel Firster” and similar rhetoric to suggest that some conservative American Jewish reporters, pundits, and policymakers are more concerned with the interests of the Jewish state than those of the United States. Last week, for example, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald asked Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg about any loyalty oaths to Israel Goldberg took when he served in the IDF during the early 1990s. (On Tuesday, writer Max Blumenthal used a gross phrase to describe Goldberg: “former Israeli prison guard.”) The obvious implication is that Goldberg’s true loyalty is to Israel, not the United States. For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term “Israel Firster” to describe conservatives he disagrees with. One recent Tweet singled out my friend Eli Lake, a reporter for Newsweek: “Lake supports #Israel line 100% of the time, always Israel first over U.S.” That’s quite mild compared to some of the others.

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize.

…and the ruckus on the left beats on.

As I’ve written before, this is about a very real battle on the left and in progressive circles, with American Jews pushing back very, very hard on being called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israeli policy.

Giving the right and so-called analysts of the Middle East who interpret any criticism some of their own medicine to see how they like it is exploding the debate, but also making an important point. Ackerman’s take seems to miss this point entirely.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

The Rahm Emanuel way, and the Occupy way, to get ready for the Chicago G8 / NATO Summit

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

This May Chicago will host a summit already attracting the attention of Wall Street-ers and Occupiers both. Preparations are being made. First, from the Occupied perspective, via Adbusters:

Against the backdrop of a global uprising that is simmering in dozens of countries and thousands of cities and towns, the G8 and NATO will hold a rare simultaneous summit in Chicago this May. The world’s military and political elites, heads of state, 7,500 officials from 80 nations, and more than 2,500 journalists will be there.

And so will we.

On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.

I don’t know if 50,000 is close to reasonable, though I hope it is. I do think it’s safe to guess that the Occupiers will be numerous. It’s probably also safe to guess that most of the G8 and NATO summit attendees won’t be paying direct attention to the Occupation. But the international gathering won’t and can’t avoid the messages of the public spaces created by the Arab Spring, Occupy, 99% and more.

From the same Adbuster’s piece:

And when the G8 and NATO meet behind closed doors on May 19, we’ll be ready with our demands: a Robin Hood Tax; a ban on high frequency ‘flash’ trading; a binding climate change accord; a three strikes and you’re out law for corporate criminals; an all out initiative for a nuclear-free Middle East; whatever we decide in our general assemblies and in our global internet brainstorm – we the people will set the agenda for the next few years and demand our leaders carry it out.

And if they don’t listen; if they ignore us and put our demands on the back burner like they’ve done so many times before; then, with Gandhian ferocity, we’ll flashmob the streets, shut down stock exchanges, campuses, corporate headquarters and cities across the globe; we’ll make the price of doing business as usual too much to bear.

Predictable reaction to the above: what makes you think the attendees will pay any attention? What seems like an obvious response to me: because they already are. See State of the Union address and World Economic Forum.

Also, see Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago’s mayor. From Truth Out:

Following weeks of public pressure against Chicago’s changes to the city ordinance by Occupy groups and concerned citizens, the City Council voted Thursday to adopt the ordinance changes introduced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Critics say the ‘sit down and shut up’ ordinance, as it has been called, seeks to chill protest and civil liberties in Chicago … .

When the ordinance was first introduced, it was said to be only a measure for the NATO/G8 conference to be held in Chicago in May, but it was later revealed that the ordinance change is expected to be permanent.

The TruthOut piece lists specifics of the approved ordinance, citing the Chicago Independent Media Center. Those include:

Virtually every street protest in the downtown would be designated a ‘large parade,’ requiring $1 million liability insurance …

Demonstration organizers would be required to have one marshal for every 100 participants.

Under a wholly new section of the municipal code …, even gatherings on sidewalks, with no presence in the streets, would now be subject to demands that they get permits, giving the City extraordinary latitude to dictate what union and other pickets occur or get shut down by police action.

Allow the police Superintendent to deputize FBI, DHS, ATF, and DOJ employees as Chicago police officers.

There was a lot of pushback on Emanuel’s original plan, and there was at least one concession, as Common Dreams reports. The mayor did drop an increase in minimum fines from $25 to $200, and from doubling the maximum fine to $1000. Common Dreams also provides a quote from Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy:

‘We don’t want to give the impression that we’re looking to do anything about the 1st Amendment except protect it.’

A Sun Times story includes this about Chicago’s preparations:

Deb Kirby, chief of international relations for the Chicago Police Department, estimated that as many as 10,000 protesters would descend on Chicago to protest the back-to-back summits.

That’s significantly less than Adbuster’s estimate of 50,000, and it may well be that the actual number will fall somewhere in-between. Either way, there will likely be significant numbers of people, from around the world, in Chicago when the G8 and NATO come together. I don’t know if Emanuel shares what sounds like the “foreigner” concerns of Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke, quoted in the Sun Times piece:

‘These aren’t the home-grown, backyard, vegetable garden protesters. They’re gonna be coming from Europe. They’re gonna be coming from Asia. And they’re gonna be coming from Latin America.’

Perhaps a part of Mr. Burke’s preparation will be learning to say, “sit down and shut up” in multiple languages.

Adbusters is not only preparing and pushing for this, but are talking more, and more openly, about the need for “political action.” Adbusters doesn’t direct or control the movement, but it’s certainly influential. More about that later. For now, May in Chicago is one of the biggest Occupy (and related) actions yet planned. Coming in the midst of the 2012 political games, it could get very interesting.

(Occupy Chicago poster via Adbusters)

Read full story · Comments { 12 }