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 | February, 2012

Democrats Ratchet Up Rhetoric on Iran, From Gillibrand to Wyden to McCaskill

By on 29 February 2012

While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran. – The New York Times

It must be a presidential election year.

But let’s not pretend this isn’t due to an adversity to enlightenment and our international interests.

Cards meet table, if Israel feels threatened she should strike.  Everyone else will have to deal.  The world has suffered worse and so have the Jews.

So let’s have it, minus the part that nobody wants to jump.

George W. Bush and the neoconservatives proved to the world not having WMDs was as bad as having them, so what’s to keep Iran from flexing?

Some remember public school drills and the underside of desks. Who went soft?

…and what are we going to really do about Iran, past pontificating?

Pres. Obama is to meet with P.M. Netanyahu next week in Washington, just in case you’re wondering why the Senate just got busy on a non-binding sense of the Senate Iran resolution.

I’ve been purposefully ignoring the web pages devoted lately to Israel striking Iran, because I’ve been to enough foreign policy think tank forums to know that little of what’s being written or discussed is grounded in sane analysis. Tune in to one minute of Sean Hannity and you’ll get the worst of it.

Much of the Iran talk where Israel is concerned revolves around a “zone of immunity,” which I’ve written about before. Blake Hounshell has an excellent rundown of what’s been happening leading up to Netanyahu’s visit next week.

The key issue under discussion is what the appropriate “red lines” are — Iranian actions that would trigger a military response by Israel or the United States. For Israel, the bar is lower, but nebulous: Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about Iran soon entering a “zone of immunity” that will make an attack impossible. …

[...] But threats have consequences, too. U.S. officials haven’t clearly articulated why they believe all this war talk is unhelpful, but I suspect two reasons. One is the rising cost of gasoline, perhaps the issue that terrifies the political side of the White House most heading into November. Tensions over Iran are already adding about $10 per barrel to the price of oil, some analysts say, threatening to choke off America’s nascent economic recovery and make Obama a one-term president.

Sen. Gillibrand joining in on the sense of the Senate resolution on Iran is representative of why I called her out on Afghanistan in my new book, because she’s yet to prove boldness on foreign policy, let alone any leadership. One of the many issues I address in my book, as I have around here, is the rhetoric females use in foreign policy, which has yet to shift beyond militaristic terms.

The Iran Resolution proves why being a sitting senator from New York is complicated, as Hillary’s Iraq war vote the fall after 9/11 proved conclusively. With a heavy Jewish voter base, Gillibrand reveals yet again that Democratic females in the position to show leadership inevitably fall in line with conventional foreign policy thinkers, which keeps U.S. foreign policy from progressing and shifting.

It’s also why I wrote in my book about having great hopes for Elizabeth Warren, but whose progressive leadership remains to be proven. Once in the Senate, Democratic females trend toward mimicking their hawk brothers, which remains a problem for anyone wanting a wider lens on U.S. foreign policy. Since Sen. Scott Brown has joined the sense of the Senate resolution, maybe some enterprising journalist can put the question to Warren. Her answer matters.

If Democratic women politicians don’t stand apart from 20th century foreign policy thinking, which is traditionally militaristic, they threaten to carve a policy portfolio that is domestically driven, leaving the wider world to men, which would be a tragedy for progressivism itself.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

To express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. CASEY, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COATS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. COONS, Mr. CORNYN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on….

RESOLUTION

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Democracy Alliance decisions and ‘Do it again!’ games

By on 29 February 2012

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

Earlier today Taylor wrote about the Democracy Alliance decision that dropped certain progressive groups. It so happened that I’d focused on the same thing today. We do that occasionally. Maybe it’s a liberal thing.

Anyway, check out Taylor’s piece. You can see the breaking story by Ryan Grim at HuffPo.

David Dayen at FireDogLake wrote about the DA decision:

I would argue that de-funding outside groups has been uniquely unhelpful to the progressive movement over the past few years. So here they go again.

I’d take another step in considering the DA decision. I agree with Dayen about the “here they go again” responsibility of those making decisions to dump and de-fund progressive groups “outside” the Democratic Party’s dominating influence. But I think that can be expanded. It’s kind of like kids at the stage in their development when they love knowing what’s going to happen because, in part, it gives them a sense of power and control, and so they request “Do that again!” That’s basically what the electorate, in general, tells the Duopoly, with every election: “Do that again!” The DA decision, it seems to me, is geared toward that same end.

The Democracy Alliance describes itself:

We are a first-of-its-kind partnership of changemakers who are committed to a stronger democracy and a more progressive America.

Launched in 2005, the Democracy Alliance (DA) was created to build progressive infrastructure that could help counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus in the areas of civic engagement, leadership, media, and ideas.

DA does not directly fund progressive groups, but through two annual conferences, among other things, make connections between donors and organizations.

“Changemakers” is an interesting term. But how much “change” can take place when your decisions basically maintain the status quo? How much “change” can happen when voters keep telling Wannabe’s and Electeds, “Do that again!”

According to Dayen:

The Democracy Alliance came about as a way to replicate the culture of donating to movement infrastructure on the right. Through a roundabout process, members of the Democracy Alliance come together to hear presentations and support different progressive organizations.

Grim’s “Democracy Alliance Dumps Progressive Organizations” includes:

The donor network has long faced tension over how to build a progressive movement and bring about social change, particularly over whether to focus on electing Democrats in the next cycle or building lasting infrastructure. The group has faced particularly acute friction over deciding if it should devote funds to President Obama’s reelection or invest in more long-term projects.

Among those who support the creation of a progressive infrastructure, there is heavy debate over whether to fund organizations closely aligned with the Democratic Party or those that operating outside it and pressuring it to move in a more progressive direction.

The groups dropped by the Democracy Alliance tend to be those that work outside the party’s structure. Groups with closer ties to the party, such as the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, retained their status with the Democracy Alliance as favored organizations.

Included among those dropped by DA are Brave New Foundation (Robert Greenwald), Citizen Engagement Lab (James Rucker), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW, with Melanie Sloan), NDN (Simon Rosenberg), Third Way, the Center for Progressive Leadership, the Advancement Project, Democracia, and Free Press.

According to Grim,

Groups working on issues relating directly to people of color appear to be the most dramatically affected.

America Votes, which works on electing Democrats, was retained, as were the Center for Community Change, Progressive Majority and the New Organizing Institute. …

Read Grim’s article for details about what the “dumped” organizations are accomplishing.
An official at DA explained the changes:

‘The recent decisions were part of a natural funding cycle that all philanthropic organizations go through.’ …

And the fact that we’re well into the 2012 version of “Do that again!” two party politics has nothing to do with it? From a now former DA member of the donor network:

… Deborah Sagner … said that the decision was in line with the group’s unfortunate drift toward supporting only groups closely allied to the Democratic Party. …

Why, many may be asking, haven’t we heard much about Democracy Alliance? Grim writes:

The Democracy Alliance maintains a low profile by forbidding recipients from talking publicly about the organization. But former recipients are under no such rules.

He adds this, from CREW’s head, Melanie Sloan:

‘CREW is very appreciative of the Democracy Alliance’s past support. … Still, at a time when Americans are increasingly concerned about the corrupting influence of money in our political system, it is disappointing the group has chosen to focus on other areas.’

All of this reminds me of the “Do that again!” stage of children’s development. There’s a sense of empowerment, of having an impact, when they know what will happen. Of course, that’s about something they enjoy. People saying, via organizational decisions and votes, “Do that again!” to Duopoly Electeds who clearly do not have our best interests in mind isn’t. Or if it is something “enjoyed,” then there’s another, very big problem involved. At some point kids move on to other ways of learning. But when it comes to the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, there seems to be an insistence that voters keep saying, “Do that again!” while pretending something has changed.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Rick Santorum, from J.F.K. to Political Extremism, Catholics Go For Mitt

By on 29 February 2012

What a bone-headed campaign Rick Santorum is running. When I looked at the CNN exit poll numbers it confirmed it. Romney won Catholics in Michigan 44% to Santorum’s 37%. Extremists highlight Santorum’s chances, with 60% of his supporters in Michigan believing abortion should “always be illegal.”

All I have to do is look at my own family to see not all Catholics, especially females, are religious conservatives, as Santorum clearly is, even when they’re Republican [edited for clarification].

Ed Kilgore makes note of this today, just as I was about to highlight the same reality.

That was my initial reaction, too, until I started wondering: why did we all assume Santorum had an advantage among Catholics in the first place? Yes, he’s an outspoken “traditionalist” Catholic, cozy with its famous Opus Dei elite, happiest in surroundings like Florida’s overtly traditionalist Ave Maria University, and very self-identified with the Bishops in their current fight with the Obama administration over its contraception coverage mandate.

Yes, as I and others have amply documented, the idea that Catholics are more conservative than Americans generally, even on “social issues,” is pretty much a myth.

The minute Rick Santorum used the words John F. Kennedy and “throw up” I knew he’d jumped the political shark with Catholics, regardless of his walk-back yesterday, which was self-serving.

Rick Santorum is no more representative of your average Catholic voter than Peggy Noonan, E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields or Chris Matthews. Something they all found out recently, which was evidently shocking to them. They never considered the First Amendment swings both ways, protecting female workers (and others) from religious encroachment, too.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Democracy Alliance Ousts Progressive Shakers

By on 29 February 2012

It doesn’t get any more inside political baseball than this, but it’s a hard hit for movement progressives and activists, some of whom have been serious movers and shakers.

Ryan Grimm reporting:

The groups dropped by the Democracy Alliance tend to be those that work outside the party’s structure. Groups with closer ties to the party, such as the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, retained their status with the Democracy Alliance as favored organizations.

The decision to drop certain groups was delivered to those affected last week. Among the ones axed are Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Foundation, James Rucker’s Citizen Engagement Lab, Melanie Sloan’s Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (known as CREW), Third Way, the Center for Progressive Leadership, the Advancement Project, Democracia, Free Press and Simon Rosenberg’s NDN, according to sources with knowledge of the situation. Groups working on issues relating directly to people of color appear to be the most dramatically affected.

Inside Grimm’s reporting, the statements of gratitude for Democracy Alliance from strong progressive fighters being kicked out will give you an idea of DA’s power, but also the quickly regrouped attitude required of ousted groups to maintain their image and confidence as they seek independent funding in a very competitive financial climate this year.

Not being in the progressive movement community, but a liberal writer about all things political, I can’t help but see this as a corralling money moment, so that funds can be directed strategically, which means to those who already have power.

When you look at what Greenwald’s group has done on the Koch Bros., as well as Melanie Sloan’s group, but especially James Rucker’s work in helping to oust Glenn Beck, there’s been some real work done here to expose elements of the political world that are worthy of investigation.

Democracy Now! has been outside the DA circle for years now, I believe.

Media Matters, who has close Democratic Party ties, as well as Center for American Progress, which does as well, both remain inside DA.

But Deborah Sagner, a former member of the donor network, said that the decision was in line with the group’s unfortunate drift toward supporting only groups closely allied to the Democratic Party. “I was sorry to see that the DA has continued on the trajectory away from funding independent infrastructure that induced me to leave the organization two years ago. I will say that the DA was a great idea (the need was nicely expressed by Bill Bradley in this editorial written at the time the DA was incubating), did some excellent funding of good groups, and it’s really a shame that it has not been able to fulfill its promise,” she wrote in an email. – Ryan Grimm

This story is hitting hard across the Democratic progressive activist world.

It’s another de-funding moment for movement progressives by an establishment money organization.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Olympia Snowe Retirement Starts Rumor Mill Rolling

By on 29 February 2012

“Mitt Romney winning closely in his home state is like Charlie Sheen barely winning a primary in a Hooters.” – Paul Begala (via CBS “Morning Show”)

The day of Mitt Romney’s Michigan squeaker, Olympia Snowe gives Republicans another huge headache.

Here’s part of her statement that set off Jonathan Chait to wondering whether Ms. Snowe is bound for, of all places, Americans Elect:

As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern, and I believe there are unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate. I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America. – Sen. Olympia Snowe’s Retirement Announcment

I don’t see it, but then I’m not as paranoid as many on the left about Americans Elect’s efforts, even if they will represent insiders and the mushy middle.

It comes as David Boren, former Oklahoma governor and senator, who backed Obama endorses Americans Elect, saying the the U.S. political system needs “electric shock therapy”.

That’s hard to argue against.

Oh, and just in case you weren’t tired of seeing the last men standing debate one another. Mike Huckabee is hosting a Fox News Channel forum this coming Saturday night, with everyone but Ron Paul having accepted the invitation.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Santorum: ‘That’s What Bullies Do, When You Hit Them Back They Whine’

By on 28 February 2012

**updated below**

CNN Projects Romney Wins Michigan

The Dow hit 13,000 today.

That’s not good for the Republicans, but listening to Ari Fleischer talk tonight on CNN about a “down economy” you’d never know it even happened.

It’s not as bad as Alex Castellanos talking about sex being something people kind of like, so that’s Santorum’s biggest problem, but what are Republicans to do?

Await the Michigan verdict.

Update: CNN calls Arizona for Mitt Romney.

TM Note: Quote in the title via CNN news feed.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

“Occupy the Vote” and an OWS Super-PAC

By on 28 February 2012

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

This will probably dismay some, Occupiers and critics / observers alike. It will please others. Anonymous and some Occupy groups have joined forces to promote “Our Polls.” Most of the Occupy / 99% movement works outside the electoral system. But of course, it’s entirely possible to take actions in that “outside” realm, while also making use of the existing system. And for groups with “outside” and “inside” strategies to support each other, even coordinate joint actions. I also think that kind of coordination and cooperation is something the Duopoly prefers doesn’t happen. It’s to their benefit when efforts are divided.

Via Anonymous:

OUR POLLS — OCCUPY THE VOTE – ELECTION SEASON 2012

Announcing ‘OUR POLLS’ – A new joint effort between Anonymous and the Occupy Movement to hold politicians accountable to the People.

Elected officials serve one purpose – to represent their constituents, the people who voted them into office. Last year, many of our elected officials let us down by giving in to deep-pocketed lobbyists and passing laws meant to boost corporate profits at the expense of individual liberty.

Our Senators and Representatives showed how little they cared about personal freedoms when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Of course, it wasn’t just “last year” that this kind of thing happened, but the last couple of years or so have certainly been rich with examples of Electeds representing the “1%,” not their ostensible constituents. It’s also important to point out that while some Occupy groups have joined in this project – Occupy KC, DC, Prov, Pdx, Baltimore and the Nation – most, at least to this point, have not.

“Our Polls” asks an essential question: Will we hold those Electeds accountable on election day? Will it make a difference how votes are cast, when – as “Our Polls” does – we consider who supported NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, HR 1981 and the ACTA treaty?

We are calling on voters, activists and keyboard warriors under all banners to unite as a single force to unseat the elected representatives who threaten our essential freedoms and who were so quick to minimize our individual constitutional rights for a quick corporate profit.

They provide two lists, with both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. The first is of U.S. Senators up for re-election, who voted for NDAA, and “will support PIPA,” and a second of U.S. Representatives who supported NDAA and “will support SOPA.”

It will be interesting to see what happens next with “Our Polls,” as in, what specific actions will they take. Will they endorse candidates? Run candidates? They do include this:

Follow @OurPolls and @AnonPAC for updates, news, leaks, and calls to action.

Yep, they mention a PAC. And they aren’t the first to do so, from the 99% side of things. I don’t know how much attention, much less support, this will receive, but John Paul Thornton, a Decatur, Alabama Occupier noticed Stephen Colbert’s “super-PAC,” and decided Occupy should have one, for real. He’s waiting to hear back from the FEC, but a couple of weeks ago

… Thornton … filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to create…the Occupy Wall Street Political Action Committee. …

Thornton admits that some members of the Occupy movement, which contends that the political system is broken and seeks to work outside of it, might not take kindly to OWS PAC.

‘I will admit it’s not exactly keeping with strict Occupy ideals,’ he says. But Thornton doesn’t subscribe to the movement’s stay-out-of-politics philosophy. ‘The thinking is, if Occupy is going to evolve and to become an actual political player, it needs to participate in major political games.’

Karanja Gacuca, a spokesman for Occupy Wall Street, says it’s not surprising that, as the Occupy movement moves forward, someone like Thornton would jump into the political arena. But that’s not where OWS is headed. ‘Occupy Wall Street as a movement rejects the political system as a broken system that needs to be overhauled from the bottom up,’ Gacuca says. OWS PAC, he adds, is ‘an alternative action which if it were to be voted on at the general assembly would never pass. But individuals are individuals and we understand that people are going to use the Occupy name to do alternative actions.’

I continue to think the questions that need asking are about ways, plural, to “participate,” to change and challenge and “overhaul” the existing disaster of a system. The either/or approach doesn’t work. Or rather, it works quite well, for those whose goal, and income, are all about maintaining the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy.

(Occupy the Vote poster via Your Anonymous News)

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Obama: ‘Looking Out For One Another, That’s A Value’

By on 28 February 2012

Video compliments of TPM.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Rick Santorum Regrets

By on 28 February 2012

“I wish I had that particular line back,” Santorum said Tuesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. – The Hill

People who are ready and equipped for the national spotlight, but also understand America, not just their besotted base, know intuitively what things crossing their mind should not be uttered.

Rick Santorum saying reading John F. Kennedy’s speech on religion made him want to “throw up” was again criticized today by Rush Limbaugh, following criticism by Newt Gingrich.

But the reason Santorum wants the line back is because it’s forever bracketed him as what he is: an extremist religious conservative who disrespects the secular traditions of presidential power and someone Americans cannot trust to keep those traditions in place.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Mitt Romney ‘Not willing to light my hair on fire’ for Support

By on 28 February 2012



Worst of all, there is no clear end in sight for what has become, in the eyes of many Republicans, a joyless and prolonged nomination fight. Even Romney victories in Michigan and Arizona, the two states voting Tuesday, have little chance of forcing his aggrieved opponents out of the race. With a vast personal fortune at his disposal, there’s no prospect of Romney being shunted aside by his foes. – Politico

It’s not the “knife fight” Republicans should worry about, as Politico’s Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns describe it. Obama and Clinton had the mother of all battles in 2008, but Democrats were exalted at the end. The problem for Republicans is the people throwing the knives.

There isn’t one GOP candidate who measures up to Obama or the challenge Hillary Clinton posed, with their battle one of political muscle, talent and intelligence, a race to the top of the idea pyramid.

Beyond Newt Gingrich’s 1% “infanticide” insults, Ron Paul’s foreign policy stink bomb, as Republicans see it, you’ve got Rick Santorum using the words “throw up” about John F. Kennedy’s seminal speech on religion and the presidency, while Mitt Romney is so discombobulated from turning himself inside out he’s forgotten he’s already lit his hair on fire for a base who will only support him if the alternative is a second Obama term.

As the finale of Michigan and Arizona contests arrive, Mitt Romney, even if he wins Michigan, is in a far worse position to beat Obama in November. That’s the real problem for Republicans, for which there isn’t a solution that doesn’t compound their problems.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Michigan is All the Marbles for Mitt

By on 28 February 2012

Michigan Democratic strategist Joe DiSano has taken it upon himself to become a leading mischief maker. DiSano says he targeted nearly 50,000 Democratic voters in Michigan through email and a robo call to their homes, asking them to go to the polls Tuesday to vote for Rick Santorum in attempt to hurt Romney. – Democratic Mischief in Michigan

Poor Mitt, he’s getting hit from all sides.

Talking Points Memo has the robo call from a man with a gruff sounding voice meant to sound like a working man, talking about Democrats needing to get out to vote for Rick Santorum. The tag line is “this call was paid for by the Santorum for president committee.”

I’ve wanted a Romney – Obama match from the start, because of the big money political show it would be and the potential for unmasking the big two parties machines in the worst ways.

But Mitt Romney’s rolling gaffes and his own incompetence as a candidate has been stunning to watch and has put his path to the nomination in jeopardy. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be formidable, because of the Super PAC avalanche, but also because there are so many world event variables that could still make 2012 tough for Pres. Obama.

However, as things stand today Republicans are going to have a rough time making the 2012 election a referendum on Pres. Obama, which is their path to victory.

While Romney continues to be unable to close the sale, it’s not hard to see why religious conservatives are excited about the Santorum revival. He can even talk national security the way they like to hear it.

But could Democrats help Santorum and maybe make a difference in Michigan? Read Nate Silver and decide for yourself.

Republicans have bigger problems, because of how badly wounded Mitt Romney is today, much of it his own fault, including how far right he’s gone, especially on immigration. Romney continuing to lose prowess to Rick Santorum, whose extreme views and the power he’s building with religious conservatives threaten Republicans far beyond 2012, has been humiliating for Mitt Romney as a general election candidate.

It’s the set up for Jonathan Chait’s article in New York Magazine.

…Rick Santorum warns his audiences, “We are reaching a tipping point, folks, when those who pay are the minority and those who receive are the majority.” Even such a sober figure as Mitt Romney regularly says things like “We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy,” and that this election “could be our last chance.”

The GOP has reason to be scared. Obama’s election was the vindication of a prediction made several years before by journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Despite the fact that George W. Bush then occupied the White House, Judis and Teixeira argued that demographic and political trends were converging in such a way as to form a ­natural-majority coalition for Democrats.

The Republican Party had increasingly found itself confined to white voters, especially those lacking a college degree and rural whites who, as Obama awkwardly put it in 2008, tend to “cling to guns or religion.” Meanwhile, the Democrats had ­increased their standing among whites with graduate degrees, particularly the growing share of secular whites, and remained dominant among racial minorities. As a whole, Judis and Teixeira noted, the electorate was growing both somewhat better educated and dramatically less white, making every successive election less favorable for the GOP. And the trends were even more striking in some key swing states. Judis and Teixeira highlighted Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona, with skyrocketing Latino populations, and Virginia and North Carolina, with their influx of college-educated whites, as the most fertile grounds for the expanding Democratic base. [...]

Chait’s piece, “2012 or Never,” makes the case that this is it for the GOP.

Remember where conservatives were in November 2008, after Pres. Obama won?

We wrote about the death of conservatism back then, too, but in Obama’s first two years the Tea Party rose up, with a lot of help from Sarah Palin, who has long since squandered her power. But not before she helped rev up the religious conservative engine to make historic gains in the 2010 election midterms.

The new group of right wing religious conservatives pointed their energy at women, setting off a war on female freedoms we haven’t seen in decades, which went from state to state.

But religious conservatives overstepped, as many of us have been writing, because extremists always do eventually.

It came to a head when Pres. Obama mandated free contraceptive coverage, then took a scalpel to carve out a First Amendment exclusion that was not planned, but brilliantly played when the uproar played out just how David Plouffe’s polling told him it would.

Women of all faiths and none rose up, leaving the political landscape littered with talking heads and cable yakkers, mostly of the white male variety, their mouths agape, as they had to dial back their pompous vitriol and ignorance over what the First Amendment meant to everyone, not just “the church,” but women in the workplace, too.

Then Gov. Bob McDonnell took a very public flogging for Virginia’s Republican extremism that manifested in transvaginal state rape legislation, with the entire comedic universe bearing down on McDonnell, as well as every political new media site, pundit and writer who had a place to opine.

But according to Chait’s argument in his article, using data that’s been around a while, in the end it will all one day come down to demography.

Not tomorrow it won’t. But what was triggered to manifest when Pres. Obama came in to office, another opportunity very similar looks like it’s returned. Now if the world community, Israel, and Greece will cooperate… then there’s Iran.

The short-term depends on whether Rick Santorum can take Mitt Romney down in Michigan. But also whether the stories of Democrats helping Santorum do it amount to anything significant.

Surely Mitt Romney won’t allow Rick Santorum to beat him in the state where his dad was governor and he grew up. There is no overstating how big it would be if that happens.

What a Romney loss would mean for Republicans in 2012, however, is wild to contemplate.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Pakistan’s ‘Saving Face’ Wins, Oscar Loses

By on 27 February 2012

“Tonight, enjoy yourselves, because nothing can take the sting out of the world’s economic problems like watching millionaires present each other with golden statues.” – Billy Crystal



The problems with Oscar have nothing to do with the producers having to bring back Billy Crystal to do the impossible, try to rescue them from irrelevancy. It has to do with leaching the present out of art and looking back, always back.

I liked “The Artist,” with flashes of Gene Kelly seen in Jean Dujardin, something I heartily approve. That it was a silent film about an aging male star saved by a younger, wealthier female star, which I’m not the first to notice, reveals the aging reality of Oscar too.

Martin Scorsese inspired by his daughter to craft “Hugo,” a man past mid-life being influenced by the new generation, in 3D no less, somehow didn’t fit the year.

Harvey Weinstein’s tenacious stewardship of “The Artist” is commendable of what can happen when you get behind a film. While the story is a throwback: a drunk has-been burns his apartment to ashes, but is given another chance at the hands of an adoringly rich female star. Cue the Oscar winning score.

As for “The Help,” I loved the performances. Octavia Spencer, whom I’ve written about before, was wonderful to see win. A person of color is an anomaly at Oscar. But the character white-washing in the film, which ironically makes the movie all about the white women in it, is stunningly surreal.

Oscar night is set in yesterday and it feels like it, especially when you look at the big winners this year: a silent film wins best actor, Streep, a silent film wins best picture, and one black actor playing a mammy in white world. Christopher Plummer is close to the same age as Oscar.

Ms. Streep mentioned that people watching might be saying “her again?”, something many ponder annually, if you know anything about Hollywood, women’s roles, and how younger females become older actors trying to break through and up. The best thing Rooney Mara did for her career was end up on best dressed lists.

That’s why “Saving Face”, unnoticed here but is shattering Pakistan taboos on silence, reveals what films can be and why Oscar would be better off if more were.

Amid an aging male silent film star, a mammy movie and other films that don’t break or challenge anyone, including “Iron Lady”, which prefers the great and horrible Margaret Thatcher in her dementia than at her zenith. Oscar has become a night when “The Grapes of Wrath” power of the movies has disappeared and side shows of aerial feats by dancing acrobats of Cirque de Soleil are brought in to keep audiences interested, because even Oscar has lost interest in showing the films on Oscar’s big night.

Oscar’s broken and not even Billy Crystal can fix it, because what’s required has nothing to do with the host. Unfortunately, after one year of going trendy the Oscar poobahs got spooked. So, it’s a night of last year’s films and in memoriam, with actors as real people sandwiched in.

But “Saving Face” got it’s moment and will again in early March when it airs on HBO. So it can’t be all bad, because without Oscar few would know about it.

Angelina Jolie’s leg also got a moment and its own Twitter account. The dress Jolie wore was far more satisfying, because her leg was free, the fabric flowing, the dare in her stance commanding.

There’s nothing coquettish about Ms. Jolie. She dares.

It beat looking at caged breasts astride plunging necklines, or trapped décolletage in strapless numbers that pinch the flesh to pop out, both preferred cheesecake for Oscar and his silent film friends, who are still a bunch of rich white guys.

Oscar has never looked so old.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

“The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine”

By on 27 February 2012

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

The headline is the title of a recently released book by Media Matters, written by David Brock (also MM founder) and Ari Rabin-Havt. FOX is not amused. Their responses are a good indication of much of the news “analysis” they provide.

It’s important to understand who Media Matters is, something that FOX apparently doesn’t. From the About page of Media Matters:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

What it isn’t, and doesn’t claim to be, is a news organization.

Now, about “The Fox Effect,” via AlterNet, in analysis by Mark Howard:

Fox News Shamelessly Smears Group That Exposed Network’s Sordid History

A new book from Media Matters … released (last) week … chronicles the history of Fox News, explaining how a small group of wealthy, politically connected partisans conspired to build a pseudo-news network with the intent of advancing the right-wing agenda of the Republican Party.

FOX responds in the kind of way they know best: change the subject, ignore the facts, use personal attacks. Write your own story, and repeat it again and again as “fact.” You know, like the Tea Party is all grassroots, and Occupiers are a Democratic front.

From the AlterNet post:

(The book) begins by looking back at the early career of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and his role as a media consultant for Republican politicians, including former president Richard Nixon. …

He guided the media-challenged Nixon through a treacherous new era of news and political PR, and his experiences formed the basis for what would become his life’s grand achievement: a ‘news’ network devoted to a political party, its candidates, and its platform. …

The authors include “Six Steps” FOX uses to “create national controversies:”

STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce the lie.
STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story.
STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy.
STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story.
STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News’s coverage.
STEP 6: The story falls apart once the damage has been done.

The FOX response to Media Matters and the book began

… last year with a sustained campaign to do tangible harm by tacking an article to the top of the Fox Nation Web site with a headline that read ‘Want to File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters? Click Here.’ … The week before The Fox Effect was published, Fox News broadcast no fewer than a dozen derogatory segments … on its most popular programs … . The attacks never contained any substantive argument or example of error on the part of Media Matters.

They included going after one of the authors, David Brock.

The basis for the Fox News broadcasts was a series of articles by the Daily Caller (TDC), the conservative Web site of Tucker Carlson, who just happens to also be on the Fox News payroll. The gist of the story … is that Media Matters is manipulating news organizations, coordinating messaging with the White House, and struggling to cope with the ‘volatile and erratic behavior’ of Brock, whom TDC alleges is mentally ill. TDC never reveals where it got its psychiatric credentials … . Likewise, it never reveals where it got any of the other information for the allegations it makes against Media Matters, as every source is anonymous.

The attacks included these screen graphics accompanying three “reports”:

MEDIA MATTERS’ MONEY: David Brock is an admitted drug user
THE MONEY BEHIND THE MACHINE: David Brock committed to a quiet room
A LIBERAL INFLUENCE: Brock spent time in a mental ward

A couple of weeks ago, Darren Hutchinson posted Daily Caller Hit Piece on Media Matters Misses, and notes (hypothetically) that even if their allegations about Brock are true

… Carlson and Coglianese fail to do one important thing. They do not … even attempt to rebut any of the reporting that Media Matters has made regarding inaccurate or misleading comments in conservative media.

FOX, and like-minded – or not minding much at all, actually – news organizations are fond of the damn the facts, attack the messenger tactics. Another example of similar tactics is something I mention occasionally because, I’ll admit, it’s just so silly: “analysis” of children’s television shows and movies which claims they are filled with liberal manipulation of “our innocent children.” (Also my excuse for using the graphic at the top of this post). Over the decades FOX, and others, have attacked Disney Land (because of “Gay Days”), TeleTubbies, SpongeBob, The Muppets and Happy Feet, among others. Lou Dobbs recently added to the list.

Jon Bershad, at Mediaite:

… Dobbs trashed the upcoming kids movies The Lorax and The Secret World Of Arrietty, accusing them of being liberal indoctrination that echoes the messages of Occupy Wall Street and President Obama. Dobbs didn’t appear to care that The Lorax is based on a book from 1971 and Arrietty is based on one from 1952 … .

Dobbs played clips from the movies and then drew the parallels.

‘So, where have we all heard this before? Occupy Wall Street forever trying to pit the makers against the takers and President Obama repeating that everyone should pay their fair share in dozens of speeches since his State of the Union address last month.’

And some people think Occupy isn’t having an effect.

None of this is to say, of course, that non-FOX media doesn’t have its own problems with spin and hype. It’s sort of like the “mainstream media” equivalent of the “lesser of two evils” framing. But FOX does set a so low to the bottom bar, and have so many millions daily limbo-ing under it, that you have to be scarily impressed.

(Cartoon graphic via OWS Press)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

TransCanada to Start Building Portion of Keystone XL

By on 27 February 2012

From The Hill:

TransCanada Corp. said Monday it plans to begin building a major portion of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline despite the Obama administration’s decision to reject a key permit for the project.

The company told the State Department in a letter Monday that it will begin construction of a section of the pipeline that runs from Cushing, Okla., to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The stand-alone portion of the project, which TransCanada dubbed the Gulf Coast Project, will cost $2.3 billion and will be completed in mid-to-late 2013, according to the company. The project must still receive other regulatory approvals.

Separately, TransCanada said it would reapply “in the near future” for a permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross from Alberta, Canada, into the United States.

The headline on Marketwatch: White House backs Keystone XL southern pipeline.

That’s a good news story for Obama, especially since Rick, Romney and the Republicans are trying their best to make something of gas prices, which never works out like people expect.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Latest Romney Truism: ‘I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners.’

By on 27 February 2012

Rick Santorum has a car with his name on it. Mitt Romney has great friends who are “team owners.” Perhaps that’s the tale of the GOP nomination at this point.

But we do need to find a new term for gaffe, aka Michael Kinsleyism, when it comes to Mitt Romney. It’s reaching critical mass.

Democrats pounced:

Asked by an Associated Press reporter as he was greeting NASCAR fans whether he follows the sport, Romney said: “Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners.”

Democratic operatives quickly seized on Romney’s comment, lighting up Twitter on Sunday night with fictitious quotes poking fun at Romney.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse tweeted: “I don’t know people who fish but I know people who own yachts.” And DNC spokeswoman Melanie Roussell tweeted: “Asked if he will watch the Oscars, Mitt Romney said: ‘I don’t get to watch movies, but my friends own theaters.’ ”

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Newt Can’t Compete in Michigan or Arizona, Turns to Railing about ‘Secular Left’

By on 27 February 2012



There isn’t much of a “left,” let alone a “secular left.” However, it does give you a idea of how irrelevant Rick Santorum has made Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich’s rallying cry is the last refuge of very desperate Republicans. To slither behind a pulpit, declare you’ve “fallen short of the glory of God,” then ramble on and on about how the “secular left” is a threat.

Huffington Post:

Newt Gingrich warned members of a Georgia church Sunday that the “secular left” is trying to undermine American principles established by the Founding Fathers as he sought to rejuvenate his presidential bid.

The former House speaker is bypassing Tuesday’s Republican presidential primaries in Michigan and Arizona and spending most of the week in Georgia, which he represented in Congress for 20 years. Gingrich said at a church north of Atlanta that Americans have faced a “50-year assault” by those trying to alienate people of faith.

Including John F. Kennedy in the “50-year assault” is rather humorous; the man who was seen as so close to the Pope he had to give a speech to prove he was not. That 50 years later Rick Santorum is admitting when he read the speech it made him want to throw up isn’t surprising.

What Kennedy proclaimed in his speech on religion wouldn’t happen today by either Democratic or Republican candidates for fear of what it would mean to “key demographics” as they’re now euphemistically called.

If the “secular left” weren’t always under threat itself and usually by the Democratic Party, whose members contort themselves while never making the case that secular government policy serves all the people without regard to faith, its charter mission, that would be one thing. But when was the last time you ever heard a Democrat stand up for secularism?

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The Radically Religious Politics of Rick Santorum

By on 26 February 2012

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. – Ronald Reagan, 26 October 1984



If John F. Kennedy had said what Rick Santorum said, highlighted on “This Week”, Kennedy wouldn’t have been elected president.

From today on “This Week”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have also spoken out about the issue of religion in politics, and early in the campaign, you talked about John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston back in 1960. Here is what you had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: Earlier (ph) in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, “I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

First question is, who’s going to define “the church”?

As we found out recently, the Catholic Church and other conservative religious Americans, including Democrats, don’t believe the First Amendment protects individuals equally as it does “the church.”

That’s a very negative modern day development for free-thinking individuals.

It gives you an idea of just how far right we’ve gone since 1960.

But even as Reagan spoke the words he did above, it was Ronald Reagan himself who emboldened religious conservatives after what they saw as defeats in Griswold and Roe v. Wade, which is why Rep. Henry Hyde struck back with the Hyde Amendment before the Reagan era.

Democrats have contorted themselves to try to prove their righteous worth, as seen by religious conservative standards, which Pres. Obama validated when he codified the Hyde Amendment into the Affordability Care Act. Before Obama, it had simply been part of the budget, voted on yearly; with help from Speaker Pelosi, Democrats changed that.

When the political self-loathing class of Democrats comes up against attacks by self-righteousness Republicans, that’s when we get wild statements by elite cable yakkers like Joe Scarborough, because no one ever holds them accountable. It’s nothing to suggest, as Scarborough did, that mandating female deacons in the Southern Baptist church is the equivalent of Obama’s contraceptive mandate, because as Santorum, Gingrich and Romney have all charged, Obama is attacking religious freedom itself. The implication and framing of the argument against Obama’s policy is what’s important, right? Why argue the facts and the false statements being used to tip the truth on its head?

In fact, Pres. Obama is upholding religious freedom, not government intervention as Scarborough falsely claimed, but as Reagan himself said, as did John F. Kennedy, that no American is required to choose any religion and I would add, be second to the interests of any.

It’s fitting religious conservatives would miss the beauty of the First Amendment swinging both ways.

Rick Santorum is the embodiment of George W. Bush’s calamitous “crusade” language made manifest in political flesh. He is the polar opposite of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and any number of the other French loving American founders.

Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII

[...] By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastic al, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A father’s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of a court into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error(1) seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse. by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of

—(1) Furneaux passim.—

Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the, present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged . Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error, however, at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Clinton Blasts Russia and China on Syria; NATO Pulls Advisers Out of Kabul After 2 U.S. Officers Killed

By on 26 February 2012



Secy. Clinton’s statement on Syria from Friday is unequivocal. “The entire world, other than Russia and China, were willing to recognize we must take international action against the Syrian regime,” Clinton said. She went further, calling the action of China and Russia “despicable.” Then asked “Whose side are they on?” Clinton saying neither were on the side of the Syrian people.

Juan Cole writes about Hamas dispersing their interests away from Syria, their long-time patron.

Today, Mitt Romney on Fox News Sunday was asked about Pres. Obama’s apology for the inadvertent burning of Qurans at Bagram airbase, which reportedly had extremist messages inside. Romney asserted “this just sticks in their throat.” Wallace continued the mantra that “winning in Afghanistan” is even possible, whatever that definition means. Romney taking issue with Pres. Obama announce a date to draw down forces, inserting illogical neoconservatism in the place of assessing reality.

When it comes to foreign policy, minus Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates are 20th century relics when it comes to envisioning America’s role in the world today.

In Afghanistan, the report from the New York Times:

Two American officers were shot dead inside the Interior Ministry building here on Saturday, and NATO responded by immediately pulling all its advisers out of Afghan ministries in Kabul, in a deepening of the crisis over the American military’s burning of Korans at a NATO military base.

The order by the NATO commander, Gen. John R. Allen, came on the fifth day of virulent anti-American demonstrations across the country, and it was a clear sign of concern that the fury had reached deeply into even the Afghan security forces and ministries working most closely with the coalition.

And a word about war with Iran from a friend of Tom Ricks:

The worst possible thing to do is go to war with Iran. The key is the people — and they are sick of the mullahs. Right now the pressure is working to separate the people from the regime. A limited strike would undercut all that.

[...] There is no doubt [that there is a huge divergence between U.S. interests and those of Israel]. We want to stop Israel from attacking so the issue is how to persuade Israel that we are serious about stopping Iran from having a weapon — like a congressional finding that we will take all steps necessary to stop Iran. It means we will define red lines that can’t be crossed.

But the bottom line is, I don’t know a single person in government, civilian or in uniform, who thinks it is in our national interest to go to war with Iran now.

Kiss of death? Rick Santorum gets a glowing tribute by Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal over Santorum’s stance on Iran.

Turning to the GOP primary race, John Heilemann writes a long piece on Romney and the culmination of his candidacy that comes down to Michigan.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Mitt Romney Minute: Just a Couple of Cadillacs? And a Ford Field Fumble.

By on 25 February 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

I think we can use Britney Spear’s anthem “Oops I did it again” as Mitt Romney’s theme song. Mitt was declared the “winner” of the nasty Wednesday debate but as usual Mitt creates a self-inflicted firestorm.

Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club event, in a stadium nearly fully empty, Romney said:

“This feels good, being back in Michigan,” Romney said. “You know, the trees are the right height. The streets are just right. I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck. So I used to have all three covered.”

A couple of Cadillacs? Just a couple? Don’t worry the Romney camp clarified with a classic case of making matters even worse. Camp Mitt told the Washington Post that:

… Ann Romney drives two Cadillac SRX’s (model years 2007 and 2010), one in California and one in Massachusetts.

And what is the costs of these Cadillacs?:

The 2010 model of the luxury compact SUV retails for about $36,000 to $50,000, while the 2007 model retails for $38,000 to $44,000. (The base MSRP for a Cadillac SRX is $35,485, according to the Edmunds car price Web site.)

So the explanation is wife Ann needs two because they have two homes on each side of the country. And voting is Tuesday? here we go again. Another damaging event for Team Romney that makes him look out of touch from working people.

Here is Mitt’s California home, nearly 11,000 square feet:

Mitt's La Jolla California Home

Then there is the New Hampshire summer estate:

Mitt's Summer Estate in NH

Compounding the gaffe was a set of explanations as to why Camp Romney would have such a speech in a empty stadium. At least 4 excuses so far have been given, from the secret service made them do it to an error in approving the venue. More here.

Here is a view of the event:

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Queer Talk: Obama administration and “gay rights are human rights”

By on 25 February 2012

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

Before getting to the Obama administration: Thursday, the Maryland Senate followed the House’s earlier approval of a bill making marriage of same gender couples legal. From Keen News:

The Maryland Senate … gave final legislative approval to a marriage equality bill that the governor is expected to soon sign. The vote was 25 to 22. …

The vote marked the third time a state legislature has given final approval to marriage equality in the past two weeks. Two of the three states (in Maryland and Washington) are likely to be put the law before voters this November. The third state (New Jersey) had the legislation immediately vetoed by its governor.

The usual advocacy mixture of “good / bad” news. The same can be said related to the Obama administration’s careful, cautious steps toward LGBT equality, with the “bad” currently at the forefront.

From John Aravosis:

So was Hillary only joking when she said ‘gay rights are human rights’?

The US won’t be cutting foreign aid to countries that violate the human rights of their gay citizens, we learned today (Feb. 23). So don’t worry about what the Secretary of State said only a few months ago. She was only joking, I guess.

From US ambassador to Liberia, Linda Thomas Greenfield:

‘Speaking … with the Daily Observer, Ambassador Greenfield said her government’s policy on gay rights was clear and in the public domain.

She stated … ‘I think the issue that has appeared in Liberia is the issue of misconception that United States aid is tied to Liberia’s actions in these areas, and this is not the case’ … .

Asked by the Daily Observer if she “supports gay rights in Liberia,” Greenfield said:

… I strongly believe that gay rights are human rights.’ …

(Aravosis writes) And that’s great. But when you say you support our civil rights, but aren’t willing to do anything about it, then you’re not really supporting us. Especially when you then say:

‘[Greenfield] told the Daily Observer that she was surprised to learn that gay rights in Liberia were an issue. …

She doesn’t know? She was surprised to hear that this is an issue?

Aravosis has good reasons to be skeptical, as he lays out. That same day the AP reported Liberia’s Senate was considering a bill that would strengthen existing anti-gay laws. The report included the fact that Liberian Senator Jewel Taylor (former first lady) submitted a bill making homosexuality a first-degree felony. Aravosis continues:

It is odd … that while the US ambassador to Liberia knew nothing of the gay rights controversy in the country she’s responsible for, the US embassy in South Africa knew about what was happening … .

… some of us actually thought Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent UN speech meant something when she said:

‘The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy.’ …

… I think Hillary’s UN speech was huge. … But … (w)e can’t have US ambassadors sending not-so-coded messages to foreign governments that they can violate the human rights of their own citizens with impunity.

Also on February 23, the Obama administration made known another LGBT related decision. From Think Progress, Zack Ford writes:

White House Rejects Hold On Deciding Gay Couples’ Green Card Petitions

When the Obama administration announced in August that it would be conducting a case-by case review of active deportations, this seemed to ensure same-sex binational couples would have the opportunity to stay together, especially given that the working group included an LGBT liaison. Though the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from granting green cards to foreign-born same-sex spouses, advocates argued that those cases could be deemed low priority and at the very least delayed until the law is changed or found unconstitutional by the courts. Immigration and Customs Enforcement even agreed to defend same-sex couples from deportation.

But things changed. Andrew Harmon, at The Advocate:

The Obama administration is standing firm against calls by LGBT rights groups and lawmakers to put a blanket hold on deciding green card petitions from married, binational gay couples. Instead, those petitions in all likelihood will continue to be rejected … .

The decision is being criticized by some advocates as a campaign-year calculation based on politics, not on sound legal analysis. …

Of course campaign considerations are in play.

Harmon reports that LGBT advocates (Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) met with government officials on January 30, at the Department of Justice. The administration “contingency” included “senior officials” from the White House, DOJ and Department of Homeland Security. But now …

DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard (told) … The Advocate … : ‘Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the Executive Branch … will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.’

Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said:

‘Nobody has offered a legal basis as to the decision that’s been made’ by the administration … . ‘All they’ve said is that they’re not going to [hold the green card petitions in abeyance]. So it has to be a political decision. How can they say that DOMA is legally indefensible, yet proceed to deny married couples the legal right to be together in the United States?’

I’d like to hear the administration’s non-political answer to that question.

(US and Rainbow Flags photo via Think Progress )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }