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.

Tag Archives | 2010

Harry Reid, Titus and F-Bombs

By on 27 January 2010

–bumped–

Now, a couple of years ago I met Dina Titus and her suave husband. I can just imagine her standing up and in her southern drawl letting fly on Sen. Harry Reid. Titus takes what Rep. Capuano said in Massachusetts (“we’re screwed”) and ups the ante. From Politico:

f bomb

In a display of contempt unfathomable in the feel-good days after Obama’s Inauguration, freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stood up at a meeting with Pelosi last week to declare: “Reid is done; he’s going to lose” in November, according to three people who were in the room.

Titus denied Tuesday evening that she had singled out Reid, but she acknowledged that she said Democrats would be “f—-ed” if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.

As far as Nevada is concerned, the Republicans are in a fight, with Reid still having a wide network and lots of cash. Titus may be right, and I’m in D.C. so I’d bet on her before me on this one, but I still think it’s possible that Republicans could eventually implode in a circular shoot out.

I’m lovin’ me some Dina f-bomb Titus right now.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Obama Has Lost More Than His Base

By on 25 January 2010

I’ve gotten a lot of emails since I sent out my newsletter last week. The more ridiculous included this one from “G.Rhodes” who said I was “still a traitor to Hillary.” Another in the same vein was from Angela B.: “When do we get your Mea Culpa for your role in s—-ing on Hillary Clinton.” Both of these emails proving some people are just too childish and emotional to be taken seriously. But most of the emails taught me something, so I thank everyone who replied.

I have now finally made it through all of the emails. Then I saw a letter posted on Real Clear Politics that sums up the mood Pres. Obama is facing at the State of the Union on Wednesday.

I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.

[....] Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.

You see, I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world’s most well-known hockey mom run this country, or to believe that Obama would surround himself with educated people and that he was smart enough to take their advice.

I was right. He is smart enough to seek counsel. I’m just outraged at the counsel he’s seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.

Robert Gibbs revealed the biggest problem with Obama and the White House team in a conversation with Ed Schultz.

SCHULTZ: I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him. … And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb. … I told Robert Gibbs, I said “And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?”

So, Schultz tells Gibbs that Obama is “losing” the base, and instead of listening and realizing that Ed Schultz might have something to teach the White House, Robert Gibbs tells him to go “f” himself. Classy. Stupid. Typical arrogance.

I’d go farther than Schultz. Obama has lost more than the base, which will likely come back because they aren’t going to vote Republican. Unless people stand up to Democratic policy negligence and simply strike 2010. But the reality is Obama’s lost the majority of independents, which is far more dangerous for Obama, because in 2010 and beyond it’s very likely that political parties will not hold sway. Call it the rise of the independent voter to political dominance, because that’s where we’re headed.

The other obvious tell that the White House doesn’t get it is bringing in David Plouffe. The problem with Obama isn’t optics, speeches and politics, it’s policy oriented. It’s the inability of Obama to TAKE ACTION on anything. Plouffe is good at the fanfare aspect, and as Gibbs illustrates they don’t want to hear about the base letting go of Obama right now because he hasn’t delivered on putting Democratic policy prescriptions in the lead. Plouffe is going to put together a political campaign pushing Obama’s successes at a time when people’s lives have crumbled, but also in an atmosphere where Obama’s first year has turned people sour against his failures.

There is also not one voter out there who doesn’t remember how Barack Obama came into office and the good will he enjoyed from all quarters. That’s been turned on its head.

As for independents, it’s going to take more than cheerleading politics to get them back, because fool me once shame on you… Obama’s worn out his trust and it’s going to take more than speeches and promises to get it back.

People were once willing to believe and join in a leap of faith. This isn’t 2008 anymore.

Read full story · Comments { 56 }

Obama to Boston Crowd: ‘Fired Up!’

By on 17 January 2010

obama-boston

Obama comes to the rescue of Martha Coakley in Boston.

Will it work? Ben Smith tweets what I’ve been hearing.

Charlie Cook’s predictable pronouncement, via Mike Allen:

“This past Thursday, Jan. 14, The Cook Political Report moved the open Massachusetts Senate seat rating from lean Democrat to toss-up, having moved it from solid Democrat to lean Democratic on Jan. 7,” Cook wrote. “We continue to see this race as very much of a toss-up, with Republican state Sen. Scott Brown holding onto a very narrow, single-digit lead over Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

“Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown. Last-minute Democratic attacks on Brown have driven his negatives up some and slightly diminished the incredible intensity of support that Brown enjoyed, but it looks more likely than not to hold.”

During Obama’s speech a man with a sign reading “Jesus loves babies” (see video below) briefly disrupted the crowd, as Pres. Obama kept saying, “We’re doing okay.” Not too long after that, a young girl started yelling, but Obama just kept on going. The speech was long, winding, and rambling (it’s still going on), but there were a couple of good lines like, “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. … We’ve had one year to make up for eight.”

Obama using the opportunity to also make his own case, also making the case for not “going backwards.” If presence is punch, maybe this will do it. But nothing about this visit is a sure bet.


Obama, including the moment where he’s interrupted by the heckler.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

How Clueless Is The Democratic Leadership?

By on 13 January 2010

updated

Photobucket

The headline here is from Talking Points Memo, to which I reply DUH. Though I’m not picking on TPM, but instead utilizing the headline to make a larger point.

Democrats remain clueless as to what they’re facing in 2010.

This includes Pres. Obama, who obviously doesn’t get it either. You’d think what happened on health care, especially that ugly part about getting beat on message by none other than Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal, would have been the last wake up call that was needed.

Evidently not, because we now find out that Democrats have been caught flat footed by the “frightening” ramming speed of Martha Coakley’s challenger State Sen. Scott Brown. After all, Republicans couldn’t possible take away “Teddy’s seat,” now could they?

They missed what happened in NY-23. Democrats were too busy gloating back when the seat was won by a Dem for the first time in 100 years, as the PR went, to take away the other lesson, which I wrote about incessantly. That the Tea Partier who came within a hair of winning was a very late entry, untalented rube that couldn’t string two sentences together on camera.

Commenters chimed in after I wrote about the Coakley-Brown battle going on, all of whom seem more aware of what’s going on and the foreshadowing for 2010 than Pres. Obama and the Democratic leadership.

nzanh commented, in part: “…Is this such a shocker that this looks increasingly like a horserace? For months the writing has been on the wall. Independents have moved away from Obama and his programs. Many Democrats have expressed reservations about the Obama agenda. …. I don’t expect Coakley to lose but if she does, I won’t be heartbroken. If that is what it takes to shake the Democrats out their arrogance, so be it.”

guyski commented, in part: Complacency, arrogance and perhaps out of touch? A day after the final debate Coakley zips off to Washington for a fundraiser at a wine bar. … It would seem that a week before a election, that someone in a close race would be staying in her state and doing retail politics; shaking hands, kissing babies, trying to get on every single TV and radio station. I hope that she wins, but if politicians can’t understand the current political environment, then well…. And I won’t mention (too much, since I mentioned it several times) the use of Bush/Cheney in the debate, let alone her Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh political ad. It is no longer effective, if Democrats can’t understands this either, then well…

Noogan commented, in part: “Coakley just thought she was going to coast to a quiet victory; she was so out of touch with the mood of the country and even her state, that she, and the Democrats have been blindsided. It’s a very sad statement about this administration. The mood is decidedly anti-Democrat right now around the country–Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are almost universally derided on both sides in comments sections. …”

Imhotep comments, in part: Does anyone sense Party fatigue setting in? If you elect a Democrat and he follows the same war plan and foreign policy as his Republican predecessor what difference does it make who you vote for? When you vote for the Democrat who promises to “reform” the health care system and what you end up with is a bill written by big Pharma and the insurance industry, who cares who you vote for? When you vote for a Democrat who promises to close the Guantanamo military prison and signs an executive order to that effect and then reneges on that promise, who cares who you vote for? Does it really matter who you vote for if the same policies and plans are carried out by whomever, Democrat or Republican, is elected to office?

Reader “Imhotep’s” last comment repeats a theme I’ve been writing about for months.

It just might be that the fallen promises of Barack Obama’s first year could be the tipping point making loyalty to party extinct, including among Democrats, who are not being given any good reason to support the current politicians, who are not exactly delivering what we want. It also illustrates how important the first year is to a president, especially when people are hurting so badly.

There is another angle not being talked about. The tenuous support Obama had after the primaries from Hillary supporters was solidified further when he picked her for secretary of state. However, that was a long time ago and many Clinton Democrats and activists who jumped on board have now soured on Obama’s presidency, with the compromises on health care, especially on women’s reproductive health issues, but also on DADT, making loyal Clinton Democrats think again, some even registering as an independent or saying to me they won’t vote for him again. They’ll simply leave the presidential option blank the next time they vote, which is said out of anger, no doubt, but illustrates how dangerous health care compromises could be to Obama going forward. (I am not talking about myself, as there is no other choice beyond Obama when it comes to foreign policy.)

Unfortunately for Obama, he’s also losing original supporters that worked hard for him, who are also disillusioned, including unions. A potential 2010 strike isn’t out of the question.

So imagine how independents and non-partisans feel, with Republicans now gone from Obama’s wing for good.

Danger signs for 2010 abound. Democrats missing them all illustrates just how clueless they are.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

The McDonnell Economic Model

By on 10 January 2010

updated below

CoakleyBrown

Bob McDonnell won the Virginia governorship because he was running against a pitifully weak Democratic candidate, but also because he used economic discontent, something Frank Rich talks about today, which extends to health care, while utilizing Democrats in Washington as the target model, tapping into what independents are feeling right now, while simultaneously capitalizing on a demoralized Democratic base and an energized Republican electorate out for political blood. Nowhere to be seen was McDonnell’s Pat Robertson, right-wing past, with his economic message even able to overcome his disastrous thesis that basically branded women as only good to be barefoot and pregnant. It’s the McDonnell model, which I talked about in psychodrew’s “In the News” diary, this quote from a conservative blog the key:

I heard Brown on a few talk shows and he is smart to not uncork too much rabid conservative issues, keeping with the economic angles and staying away from the hot social issues that got the GOP in hot water in 2006 and 2008.

I know I’m a broken record on this, but without right-wing radio, the McDonnell model’s success isn’t possible. That Fox News is thriving while other networks are dying is another example of how the stage is being set. Just read the profile about Ailes in the New York Times today.

In Massachusetts against Martha Coakley, someone who I’ve interviewed and know is as strong a female senator as we’re ever going to get, the McDonnell model is being used again, with the current trend very confused at this point, with PPP showing Scott Brown, her Republican opponent, ahead, the Boston Globe reporting otherwise. Brown is focusing on the economic issues, including negative talking points against “Obamacare,” to pummel Coakley senseless. From the Globe:

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points – 53 percent to 36 percent – when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.

Democrats shouldn’t take any chances, as PPP is not Rasmussen.

As an aside and looking ahead, the McDonnell model is Mitt Romney’s playbook.

As for the final days in the Massachusetts race, Democrats should mobilize hard, poll later. Because losing Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy’s seat no less, would have catastrophic reverberations, including on health care. It would inspire a collective cave in from congressional Democrats that would leave us with only the Senate bill, which is a disastrous gift for Republicans that could be utilized as a rallying cry, that when coupled with the McDonnell it’s the economy model, with cultural issues left untouched could be real trouble for Democrats going forward, as well as for policy, if they succeed. Because “cultural” issues, aka civil rights for women and gays to mention just too, but also DADT, would be the first policy victims if Republicans gain power.

The Republican in to the voters’ hearts is the economy, of which health care is a huge part, mainly due to the disastrous leadership of Obama and the Democrats, who let the right hijack the message and sew talking points into the broader electorate that allows the economy to be a cudgel. Massachusetts now a bell rung on what’s at stake, as well as what else will be in jeopardy if we lose Teddy’s seat.

UPDATE (1.11): Polling today shows Coakley with solid lead, so whatever the PPP polling revealed, it sure jolted everyone awake.

Read full story · Comments { 60 }

The Only Choice Left Is Mutiny

By on 08 January 2010
mutiny

I’m a liberal. “Progressive” was adopted because the right had made the word “liberal” radioactive and activists didn’t want to fight to change the persona. So, they simply adopted a new name. That’s fine, but it’s indicative of the battle, though there are strains of liberal fight in the movement progressives, seen in the economic and health care battles, but also from those who believe Obama’s words on terrorism yesterday could have been written by conservatives, which isn’t exactly shining a liberal light. Hey, but John F. Kennedy wouldn’t embrace the word either until he needed liberal firebrand Eleanor Roosevelt, so this is nothing new. It does point to the larger problem on the left, which can be better understood by looking at conservatives. The right never gets embarrassed about the tactics they use to get ahead or the labels they employ. Consider the Tea Partiers. Progressives have a natural tendency towards self-righteous earnestness and just aren’t good at scorched earth. The right, Tea Partiers, conservatives and Republicans, are experts in the tactic, especially when they’re fighting for power, as they are now, and once they get it they know how to use it. The left, progressives and Democrats, don’t. They need to learn or lose it, even if it’s their own who take them down.

Lots of discussion right now about what’s going wrong politically, especially after Obama’s first year, looking at what has and has not been accomplished by the Dem majority. Meyerson wrote a piece this week, to which I responded. Don Hazen writes the intro for Alernet’s discussion, which is followed by Les Leopold and Bruce E. Levine articles on the subject.

Alternet’s headline reads: Are Progressives Depressed or Too Privileged to Produce Social Change? Or Are We Just Failing to Organize Effectively? From Hazen:

Are progressives collectively depressed and incapable of action, depleted by the relentless corporate machine? How much of progressive inaction is a consequence of how comfortable the progressive elite is, and the gap between affluent progressives and younger, less prosperous progressives; especially those who do not work in the nonprofit sector? [...] Like most important debates, there is no one truth, and Leopold and Levine both make important and provocative arguments. On the one hand, resources are not going to be more fairly distributed and corporations are not going to be held accountable unless there is more effective mobilizing with both grassroots pressure and in the electoral arena. But at this point what is the path to change? Especially when disenchantment with Obama seems to breed cynicism and withdrawal, rather than anger and action? …

In Bruce E. Levine’s article, “Comforting the Afflicted, Afflicting the Comfortable”, responding to Les Leopold, Levine writes the following:

The good, smart people I know who are caught up in this state of helplessness are not moved to action by lectures about the history of successful movements and advice to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I wonder how Mr. Levine then accounts for the entire right-wing radio juggernaut, with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s daily “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” rants leading a horde of people who kept Bush-Cheney in office in ’04, and have now coalesced into the Tea Party contingent that is doing exactly what Levine, but also Leopold, rail isn’t happening on the left.

He can’t, because the left is stuck in word quicksand instead of seeing what’s right before their eyes.

Levine continues:

I am surprised that Les minimizes the value of small victories: “Levine’s analysis offers a way forward that involves building ‘morale’ through ‘small victories.’ That’s not good enough. The pursuit of the little ball right now, I believe, is a colossal organizing mistake.”

While Les, thankfully, sees some value in small victories, he feels we have more important needs. He says, “We need more information, more truth, and I intend to do all I can to share what I can with you.”

Obama for America did the work, the activism, the organizing, which resulted in Barack Obama and many more Democrats being put into power. This is not a small victory. Clintonites helped make it happen, working diligently to bring 18 million aboard, most of whom did it gladly. This wasn’t a small victory either. Nothing was more important than getting a Democratic president and Congress, which Americans across the country did, mostly in reaction to the misadventures of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But yet just one year later Democrats are as restless as they are worried and disaffected; disappointment too lame a word for the power of many people’s anger at what’s not manifesting under total Democratic rule.

Les Leopold responds to Bruce E. Levine:

Take the 2000 election that Levine uses as an example. The response from the Democrats and the Republicans was quite different. The Republicans flooded Florida with their top dogs who participated actively in the recounts. I can still recall Bob Dole glowering as he challenged every Democratic hanging chad. The Republicans also concocted faux demonstrations by flying in staff.

Meanwhile the Democrats relied on the legal process even though they could have organized massive demonstrations all over Florida. What did Al Gore, the leader of the entire party, do after the Supreme Court decision against him? Nothing. He meekly accepted the results and moved on. He refused to call us to join him for mass protests at the steps of the Supreme Court because he believed in the judicial process, however flawed. He refused to rock the system because he was so much a part of it.

You weren’t there and neither was I because of choices made by Gore and the Democratic Party, including its major constituent organizations. But I find it difficult to blame us or the American public for Gore’s lack of will. You know full well the Republicans would have fought to the bitter end. (Why don’t they suffer more from abuse syndrome?) …

Leopold also addresses the point I’ve been making for months, while progressives across the spectrum make fun of Sarah Palin, as well as the Tea Party activists:

The Tea Party folks got it together in a hurry, but progressives seem at a loss.

The obvious comes from one Alternet commenter:

Posted by: Perry Logan on Jan 7, 2010 2:52 AM

How can any discussion of the morale of progressives ignore the fact that we have just been betrayed by the Obama Administration? Earth calling progressives. We did organize. We did rise up as a group. It was just a few months ago–remember? And then we got shot down! We are ignoring the elephant in the room. …

Though I’d take issue with the word “betrayed,” as Barack Obama was never what people scripted, at least not in ideology or policy prescriptions. We’re seeing through health care Obama’s true political north, for good or ill, which isn’t close to “socialism” or anything similar, regardless of the overlaid “socialism” tag from the right. But Perry Logan has it right: the organizing was done, people rose to elect Democrats, but then they decided not to deliver, and aren’t worried about any consequences for their ineptitude and inaction.

Tea Party people are “bootstrap activists” who don’t care if they take down the comfortable, to use Levine’s terminology and suggestion that they need to be afflicted, with Republican politicians scared of the wrath of their base, because Tea Party activists and other conservative brethren are loud and helped out by an entire network of radio hosts singing their praises and backing their cause all day long across this country.

The rebellion on the right also comes at a moment in history where conservatives have nothing to lose.

There’s no one more dangerous.

As for the left, they’ve got all the power and put people there who believe their supporters have no place else to go. Besides, what’s so wrong with being in power? Beats the alternative, right? Not if the people who put you there aren’t getting their share of the rewards and glory for their grunt work, with the policies being floated by the politicians they helped elect not close to what was fought to achieve.

Levine’s got it right: afflict the comfortable. After all, the people in power who are leading us nowhere can’t stay there if we don’t follow.

In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers….They become the guards of the system….If they stop obeying, the system falls. – “A People’s History of the United States,” by Howard Zinn

Buy some bootstraps.

Read full story · Comments { 91 }

Dodd to Retire, Dorgan Out, Enter Harold Ford

By on 06 January 2010

Chris Cilizza reporting on Dodd, with his retirement possibly helping Dems keep the seat, according to those in the know, with a side note on Lieberman getting a serious 2012 challenger. That is, if he doesn’t go Republican by then. Still, this is a sad end for Sen. Dodd who as chairman of the Senate banking committee became a lightning rod over the stimulus, along with PR trouble from the VIP Countrywide loans, as well as when he did the Obama administration a solid by putting a loophole in the stimulus bill to pay AIG bonuses, only to have it come back to bite him hard.

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is widely expected to step into the void filled by Dodd and, at least at first blush, should drastically increase Democrats’ chances of holding the seat.

Blumenthal, who has served as state Attorney General since 1990, is the most popular politician in the state and has long coveted a Senate seat; he had already signaled that he would run for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) in 2012. (A sidenote: Assuming Blumenthal gets in to the race, Rep. Chris Murphy could be the long-term beneficiary as he is widely regarded as a rising star and would be at the top of the list of Democratic hopefuls to challenge Lieberman in 2012.) …

Sen. Byron Dorgan, who recently got a huge disappointment on Dems pushing him on his drug importation provision in the Senate health care bill, announced late on Tuesday that he’s also retiring. This is a real loss.

But the most intriguing tidbit right now is the possibility that Harold Ford Jr. might take on Kristen Gillibrand in New York. Joe Scarborough teased Ford about this last month on “Morning Joe,” though Ford said he wasn’t running for anything yet, which seems to still be the case. Betting on the African American vote, no doubt, but he’s evidently also got some elite Dem powerhouse backers also flirting with him, with the hopes of tapping a national wave as well. The New York Times covers all of this today:

About a dozen high-profile Democrats have expressed interest in backing a candidacy by Mr. Ford, including the financier Steven Rattner, who, along with his wife, Maureen White, has been among the country’s most prolific Democratic fund-raisers.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has publicly tangled with Ms. Gillibrand, is open to the possibility of supporting a challenger of Mr. Ford’s stature, according to those familiar with his thinking.

Mr. Ford, from the DLC, would obviously be running to Gillibrand’s right in the primary, if he gets in. Remembering his failed run in Tennessee, with Corker pulling out all the stops on race, it didn’t take Ford long to get married and move to a friendlier state. He’s nothing if not highly ambitious, though I wonder if New York’s big enough for he and Sen. Schumer.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

It’s Going To Get Harder From Here

By on 04 January 2010
Photobucket

Photobucket

On New Year’s weekend, all it took was one picture to set the right reeling. It began, as far as I can tell, with Glenn Reynolds, who compared Obama’s tux pic to Bush’s fighter jock “mission accomplished” stunt, but later upped the ante by posting another Obama shot, with this description: Just look at his masterful presence in this meeting with National Security staffer Denis McDonough in Hawaii.

Ann Althouse getting quickly to the James Bondian quote of one onlooker, which becomes a jumping off point for her analysis that Obama looks “tired.” What she writes from there is just too loopy to take seriously. With this part of her analysis revealing: People who like Obama are blinded to the way other people see him. This picture strongly says cool to people who love him, but it doesn’t read that way to others… including the many, many people who don’t even want a cool President.

Andrew Sullivan jumps on the “photo-smearing Obama” crew faster than you can say are these people crazy? Mr. Sullivan always there, even when he ends up sounding silly.

It illustrates one thing, whether people are haters or fans, Pres. Obama incites political insanity, proving that whatever notion he had about bringing the country together was simply a far flung hope, a dream, a fantasy.

People are tenacious in their hatreds.

Take just one email I received recently:

Taylor how does it feel to be called a white bitch by Obama supporters after your appearance on MSNBC? All the obots are lashing sexist, disgusting names at you. And that’s the kind of people you wanted to be associate with. You’re getting karma ten fold my friend. Admit you were wrong, join forces with Hillary supporters who are true progressives to save any last ounce of dignity you have left. – PUMAShouldHaveVotedHC

Mark and I had a good laugh over that one. As if people “lashing sexist, disgusting names” at me is anything new! (My hate mail page is 10 years old.)

Whether Puma or Obamabot, the partisanship attached to a political personality alone is pathetic. Where the person or political party takes precedence over issue and policy.

The only person today who comes close to mirroring Obama like disdain on the left is Sarah Palin, with the derangement towards her just as hot.

And none of this vitriol is political. It’s personal, because personality cults inspire people to popularity wars. The political gone Hollywood, which happened a long time ago, but something that was raised to a new level with Barack Obama’s candidacy, the same klieg light aura shining through his presidency.

With 2010 elections coming, a tiny foreshadowing of 2012 to come, it only gets rougher from here.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Will Conference Be Kabuki?

By on 22 December 2009

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters “mostly disapprove” of the plan 53 – 36 percent and disapprove 56 – 38 percent of President Barack Obama’s handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. [...] … … While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 – 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 – 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare. – Quinnipiac

2_Headed_New_Quarter_gallery

The Senate bill is done, regardless of the reality that 53% of people now disapprove of what Dems are doing, with Obama’s handling of health care at 56% disapproval. Considering the heights where Obama and the Democrats stood this time last year, it’s quite an achievement, with the added drama of one Democrat in the House defecting today. Howard Dean, no doubt, further infuriating the Administration and their willful enablers by getting it right yet again when answering the question of culpability:

The administration is to blame for the public option’s exclusion from healthcare legislation, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday. “Yes,” Dean flatly answered during an appearance on MSNBC when asked if the Obama administration was culpable for losing the public option.

Nevertheless, the dye is cast after the deals have been sweetened to get even Bernie Sanders to sign on. The Democratic leadership did what it had to, because they’re finally seeing the economic disaster that’s been percolating all year coming home in 2010. From CNBC (h/t Americablog):

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned there’s a “significant” chance the U.S. economy will contract in the second half of next year, and urged the government to prepare a second stimulus package to spur job creation. “The likelihood of this slowdown is very, very high,” Stiglitz told reporters in Singapore. “There is a significant chance that the number will be in the negative range.” … – Stiglitz Warns US Economy May Contract Next Year

This year is not ending well for Obama or the Democratic majority in Congress, who have underestimated the fury waiting for them in 2010. That Obama and the Democrats haven’t thought so far about front loading the goodies and getting the health care positives to the people immediately reveals just how bad they’ve botched their leadership charge.

But the Senate bill will pass, which is why I’m not writing in support of any “kill the bill” campaign. Besides, that’s not what I do here. As a political analyst, I lay out what I surmise to be the reality, no matter who it hits. I also won’t write in support of anyone wasting his/her time or efforts, when events have already turned towards conference, the next step, where the House gets to weigh in on the Senate bill (which may actually be the target of the “kill the bill” proponents, giving House members some talking points). But Pelosi isn’t Harry Reid or Barack Obama; she leads with an iron fist. Anyone think she’ll support a caucus mutiny against the Senate bill, especially since Democrats won’t use reconciliation?

Pres. Obama will not stand during the State of the Union without having the health care bill to tout. Imagine the standing ovation and thunderous applause, with people packed in the gallery, someone representative sitting with First Lady Michelle Obama. –Pause for visualization– Got that picture? Hear the noise?

People see what’s happening, however, and Pres. Obama’s esteem has taken a direct hit. “Hope and change” has been forever diminished to executive branch ego gratification. StephenG’s comment using quotes from an Obama interview with American Urban Radio Networks recently, is representative of what I’m seeing in a cascade of emails (keep sending me your thoughts please, or better yet, de-lurk and post a comment!):

… He just won’t fight for you or me. Black, White or whatever. But he will run over pretty much anyone that will threaten his place in history. … – Reader StephenG

I still can’t fathom why the legislation isn’t front loaded, but maybe they didn’t front load the legislation with health care goodies because they’re afraid of the reaction if people start hitting the health care monopoly, with horror stories hitting the local news near you. Democrats want to get through Obama’s first term still being able to tout that what they did on health care changed American lives for the better in order to get Pres. Obama elected to a second. Though it remains to be seen whether the economy will cooperate, or simply set up Mitt Romney for his run in 2012.

But we’re not there yet.

After the Senate bill passes, sometime around Christmas Eve, conference is next. But given the theater to come in January, that the Democrats simply have to get a bill passed or look incompetent at governing, does anyone believe the Democratic leadership will allow a House mutiny to derail what the Senate cobbled together through massive give-aways? A bill that many Senate Democrats believe must remain intact to keep 60 votes, because let’s face it, these people are worn out and have little fight left.

Or will House members, after watching and resting up, come in principles blazing?

“… [...] I look forward to working with the Senate and House Leadership to ensure that the final health care bill address these core principles of affordability, competition, and progressive financing. Lastly, I am troubled that some Senators believe that the House must accept the majority of the concessions embodied in this Senate bill. My message to the these Senators is this: Just as it took compromise to pass your bill last night, so now will it require additional compromise to successfully reconcile your legislation with the House. The Constitution established a bicameral legislature so that neither body would dominate the other.” – Rep. John Conyers

What will conference mean if Speaker Pelosi simply allows a rubber stamp for the Senate? How will that reduce the House, with the dynamic between the two chambers continually and historically competitive? Speaker Pelosi’s greatest test as House Speaker may yet be to come. If she can corral her caucus yet again, like she did with the Stupak contingent, Obama will get his win.

Betting against Pelosi on this one is for suckers. Because for good or principle sell out, depending on where you sit, Speaker Pelosi has provided hardball leadership no other Democrat, least of all Pres. Obama, can come close to matching.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Dylan Ratigan Previews 2010

By on 18 December 2009

updated

Meet the new hero of economic rage, and the foreshadowing of things to come. Dylan Ratigan gets it. He absolutely feels my pain, but also my political rage.

How can any Democrat defend the practice of forcing the American people to buy a product from an industry that enjoys a monopoly, with individual choice obliterated by a political party who has always professed to have the people’s back?

As we’ve seen this week, they can’t. It’s been a Dexter size political bloodbath for anyone who has tried.

Paul Krugman has lost his mind.

What’s unfolded this week has ignited my inner libertarian, with voices of You Can’t Make Me Buy Anything raging in my head.

That Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, a progressive dynamo who is among the very best we’ve got, ducked the obvious implications to the insurance stocks soaring by saying she’s not a stock analyst, reveals just how low Democratic leaders are willing to go to push the current health care bill. She made a fool of herself, just like David Axelrod did on “Morning Joe” when Ed Schultz called him out.

How Democratic leaders losing all credibility on the altar of bad legislation helps Pres. Obama or the Democratic Party is beyond me.

Paul Krugman’s embarrassing stipulation that we must “pass the bill,” the price for the average American and the middle class be damned, is a death wish. With that sound you just heard Mr. Krugman falling flat on his face from space.

On Sunday, we will next see Obama’s Karl Rove, Mr. David Axelrod, defend the White House health care plan on “Meet the Press,” with Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas, along with Ed Gillespie, sitting down to join this little chat. There will be no doubt that Mr. Axelrod will be talking about his own family’s struggles, a very personal story he’s been telling all this week. But coming out of the mouth of someone so cravenly political, who has used every dirty trick when it suited his own purpose, I find it unseemly in the extreme for him to use it at such a moment for obviously naked political goals. Even as my heart breaks for his family. However, after watching Axelrod work for years, any effort to engender empathy on his part plays like a spider to the fly drama in my head.

If we listen to Mr. Krugman, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, and Mr. Axelrod and others like Sen. Harkin, a tireless champion on the public option, painfully defend the current action by Democrats, we’re going to be in even bigger trouble than we are today going forward. For Krugman, it’s absolutely unconscionable to run around saying “pass the bill,” suggesting the American people should be forced to buy insurance from an industry without any competition included to keep costs down.

I’ve been uninsured many times in my life and it was for a reason. As a self-employed person I couldn’t afford it. I see this plan to force people to buy insurance, looking at those un-insured times in my life and thinking about paying a penalty, and I just want to scream at the top of my lungs.

This is a free country last time I looked.

Democrats have absolutely no right and no moral authority to tell me or anyone else they must buy anything, least of all inside a rigged market that sends me further into debt or maybe worse.

My inner libertarian is on fire, and I’m a die hard liberal. If that isn’t a warning sign nothing is.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Warner: ‘We got walloped’

By on 05 November 2009

Compare Mark Warner with David Axelrod.

“We won a congressional seat that’s been in Republican hands since Ulysses S. Grant was president, in part because of the disunity in the Republican Party… That was the only truly national contest on the ballot. … The most portentous thing that happened yesterday was that the right wing of the Republican Party ran a moderate Republican essentially out of the race, and lost a seat they had held for more than 100 years. I don’t take that as discouragement.” – For parties, the soul-searching begins

As bad as Axelrod’s media blitz was, the most foolish and politically silly quote of the post election aftermath came from Robert Gibbs: “It proves anger can get 45 percent of the vote. It doesn’t win a lot of elections.” Well, Mr. Gibbs should step out of his oval bubble and walk into Virginia, then saunter on over to New Jersey, with a stop anywhere in between. And though Hoffman didn’t win in NY-23, there has never been a more talentless, uncharismatic character to step up within 30 days of a contested election to come as close to taking everyone down.

Somewhere between “We got walloped” and Ulysses S. Grant is the message. The Democrats have to find their purpose. More importantly, Mr. Obama has to find a way to put the perpetual policy vamping into action. Yes, he actually has to put his favorite phrase “Fired up. Ready to go,” and figure out how to utilize it himself.

Oh, and by the way, as signature as health care is to the Democrats, passing it won’t stop the 2010 onslaught. We’re way past that now. It’s the economy on the wings of bailout blues that stoked Tuesday’s flight of the independent. Passing health care will only temporarily stop the bleeding. Looking further down the line there is jobs, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Democrats know what to do about that one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sarah Palin, Rush on NY-23

By on 04 November 2009

Via Facebook, naturally:

… The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010. The issues of this election have always centered on the economy – on the need for fiscal restraint, smaller government, and policies that encourage jobs. In 2010, these issues will be even more crucial to the electorate. I commend Doug Hoffman and all the other under-dog candidates who have the courage to put themselves out there and run against the odds. …

ScreenHunter_04 Nov. 04 13.36

Rush was on fire today, which I tweeted here, here, here and here.

Chris Kelly offers the CW on Hoffman’s loss, though he’s by no means alone on his opinion. It’s shallow and shortsighted.

What Mr. Kelly misses in his exuberance, which I appreciate because there wasn’t much to be found for Dems last night, is the miracle that Hoffman got so far in the first place. I saw a tape of part of his concession speech, played on the midnight edition of “Hardball.” The man has NO POLITICAL TALENT WHATSOEVER. Emotion and sharing stark conservative views fueled this candidacy, with Hoffman representing the Palin Party line. Conservatives came out & almost pulled it off, plus showed the GOP establishment they could do it. You can bet Charlie Crist isn’t laughing. Blue Dogs aren’t either.

But Owens is still the first Democrat to hold the seat since Ulysses S. Grant, according to Axelrod, who thought last night’s election disasters were important enough that he even appeared on Andrea Mitchell’s show, which isn’t exactly ratings central.

Hey, I’ll take the Owens win, gladly. But no one should be deluded into thinking it will stop Palin and her tea party pals.

4. With Bill Owens ‘ (D) victory in the New York 23rd district special election that makes five straight wins in contested specials over the past two years for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In 2008, the DCCC won in Illinois’ 14th, Louisiana’s 6th and Mississippi’s 1st. This year, Rep. Scott Murphy (D) won in New York’s 20th. A very impressive record in tough-to-figure-out specials. – Chris Cilizza

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sarah Palin is Now the GOP Establishment

By on 01 November 2009
sarah-palin

It’s the second time this year that Sarah Palin going rogue has paid off. Her “death panels” squeal set Pres. Obama and the Democrats back on their heals, and when she came out to endorse Mr. Hoffman it seemed laughable to many. It doesn’t matter that Dick Armey was out there too, as he’s yesterday’s news. Mrs. Palin is not.

Among the stories of Dede Scozzafava’s bombshell election bailout comes one reporting that Newt Gingrich has tucked his tail in to endorse Mr. Hoffman, after first siding with Scozzafava, as did John Boehner and Michael Steele. Nobody cares; they’re too late.

Meanwhile, Frank Rich is analyzing this in terms of what can “bring this president down,” which isn’t the lesson of the strange Scozzafava tale playing out. It’s the story of 2010 and what this rabid right rev up means for turn out, when many on the left are becoming more and more disengaged, with jobs more of a worry in 2012, with next year all about the bailout/stimulus backlash, while sending Pres. Obama a message.

Anybody who thought an abortion rights, gay rights Republican candidate would be able to survive the current climate was deluding him- or herself, even if Scozzafava’s pre-election flame out was not foreseen. Her eventual loss, or maybe it should be bracketed as the eventual rise of the tea party class candidate, was inevitable. It’s been building for months.

It’s foreshadowing of what I’ve been talking about since this summer. The far right’s resurgence in a way we haven’t seen in a very long time. Whether it’s bailout blues, the financial kind, or the revving up of the right wing engine fueled by wingnut radio, egged on by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, with a lot of help from Fox, this is a movement of emotion, the most powerful kind you can have in politics.

That’s the broader political analysis, with Howie Klein, someone who knows more about the nuts and bolts of districts and candidates, adding much more on the details. No progressive is better on this stuff than Howie.

Not surprising that as you read the articles about this Republican earthquake, few are focusing the kleig lights where they belong. Sarah Palin stood up and out and boldly backed Hoffman long before it was clear it was a very good idea. Tim Pawlenty was there, but Sarah was first among people who matter. (Mr. tea party organizer, Dick Armey, does not).

What does it mean?

Expect more of it from the far right, with moderate Republicans further on the outs than ever. But that’s not what should worry Democrats.

Looking at 2010 it means that our opponents will be emotionally engaged, attached to outcome, and inspired to support more tea party activist types at all costs. They aren’t calculating who can win as much as they are the type of person they want in office who they’re willing to back to make a statement, even if the person loses.

The most committed wins. In off year elections that goes double. If the health care bill looks as bad as the CBO’s latest reviews are saying, with premiums being higher, it’s going to add even more fodder, because people on the left will disengage. Add wingnut radio, which is the best GOTV engine in American politics, and you’ve got a political adrenaline pumped right into the voting disgruntled. Because conservatives won’t just be voting against all things Obama; they will be voting for tea party candidates that talk their language, no matter how alien it is to independents and others looking to register their complaints next year.

Amidst it all, Sarah Palin stands tallest, even as she’s still impossible to take seriously. But she understands the pulse of the pissed off on her side, which is good for her. Looking at her credibility to lead among independents and other voters, which remains non-existent, that’s good news for us, at least for 2012, because the same people who picked Hoffman run the GOP presidential primary system and there is no evidence whatsoever that they can win nationally.

But for 2010 none of this offers comfort; though in politics the winds can shift quickly, especially if a better health care bill than what’s being touted comes out of the Democratic majority. But the signs aren’t good right now.

Though I do agree with Frank Rich when looking at the runoff in Afghanistan. If Abdullah does indeed bow out, which we’ll know very soon, it will be portend potentially disastrous developments for us all.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What will be the two top issues in 2010?

By on 30 October 2009

bumped

nationaljournal_1

That was the question asked by the National Journal in its weekly new media poll, getting answers from the left and right. Both lefties and righties agreed that it would be the economy: left by 93.8%; right by 82.4%. From there partisan opinion diverged.

I was the only one who weighed in by adding another choice than what the good people at the National Journal gave us in the survey. My second choice was GOTV, because as you’ll see next week from the vote in Virginia, but maybe even New Jersey, Democrats are in real trouble on the enthusiasm meter. Here was my response, adding a category all my own, “Volunteered”:

Economy, GOTV

“The biggest issue for Dems will be turnout, with the right revved up and ready to rumble. I’d go for this combo: economy/GOTV. The bailout blues is far more widespread than Democrats acknowledge. It will fuel the right in 2010. Jobs is an issue building for 2012, as the Obama administration hasn’t had the subject in its narrative at all, mostly due to the desperate financial situation and its reverberations.” Taylor Marsh

Thanks to the National Journal for allowing me to be creative on this one. I’m not very good at political analysis within constructed lines, as the answer usually lies beyond.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Creigh Deeds is No Jim Webb

By on 13 October 2009

But with this closely-watched election less than a month away, and Mr. Deeds struggling against Robert McDonnell, the Republican former attorney general, it is hard not to forgive some Virginia Democrats for thinking that they might have been better off with Mr. McAuliffe at the top of the ticket. This is no small thing since a defeat for Democrats in Virginia would be a decided setback for this White House, particularly after President Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state last year since 1964. Democrats have held the Virginia governor’s seat for eight years. – Second Thoughts in Battle for Virginia

Republicans are waiting for next month’s Virginia governor’s outcome to begin their foreshadowing of what will be in 2010. As things look today, Democrats are certainly behind the 8 ball, mostly because Barack Obama can’t make up his mind on… anything, with bailout blues hitting across the political spectrum. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate who Virginians chose over better candidates, is also blaming Obama, but for different reasons. The real problem for Democrats in Virginia is that by choosing Deeds they’ve diluted the Democratic brand as far as it can go.

That Deeds can’t beat McDonnell, a man who had Pat Roberson as a mentor, in the age of Obama is a warning. Democrats are choosing horrible candidates they think can seduce voters across the aisle, when the candidates they’re choosing are actually weak on the principles that inspire voters to vote Democratic in the first place.

NotLarrySabato, who has been a Virginia political watcher a long time, nailed it: And to put it bluntly- Creigh Deeds is an absolute pretender. Blue Commonwealth, another veteran Virginia watcher, has more. Jerome Armstrong saying it didn’t have to end this way: The Deeds apologists will tell you that anyone would have been down like this, but that’s just nonsense.

The worst candidate is at the top of the ticket. Moran not much better, because the only way he could knock off McAuliffe was to go so negative the backlash obliterated his own campaign. McAuliffe seen as an interloping big shot who didn’t work his way up and pay his dues, even though he beat out Moran and his blizzard of negativity. My blue collar husband explained to me why McAuliffe got his vote, but Virginia Democrats didn’t buy it. They’re going to lose the governorship because of it.

However, Republicans are taking Deed’s imminent loss as a sign of something else. On this very subject, Kathleen Parker chimed in last week on “Morning Joe,” simultaneously proving she’s a lousy political analyst. Joe reading aloud from her op-ed, “The ‘Women’s Issues’ Deeds Doesn’t Get”, which rambles on about Deeds hitting McDonnell on his thesis that is utterly anti-women, which for Parker is boiled down to this: Women also get it that the economy is a shambles, that the war in Afghanistan is escalating and that the unemployment rate is growing — just to mention a few concerns outside the uterus. Really stupid stuff for someone paid to opine in the Washington Post.

Deeds is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. He’s a fatally weak candidate.

But Virginians have been diluting the Democratic brand over years. From a terrific example of how to wrestle voters to vote their interests, Mark Warner, who was touted as presidential material until he tanked giving the Democratic keynote in last year’s convention; to Tim Kaine, an even worse speaker than Warner who is now Obama’s man at the DNC; and finally, Creigh Deeds. A man who couldn’t take McDonnell’s gift of a thesis that was riven with anti civil rights language against women and use it to his advantage, basically getting beat to death by a commercial rebutting Deeds’ chargers, starring Bob McDonnell’s veteran daughter, whose performance and strengths just might win it for her dad.

This isn’t the be-all answer, but compare Creigh Deeds to Jim Webb, a man who makes people cross the aisle, like Warner did, to vote for him, but also has serious convictions. I can’t imagine Deeds having a PAC called “Born Fighting,” but that’s exactly what was required in this year’s election.

See McDonnell’s daughter, who looks and sounds like a better candidate than both men in the running.

Just look at Jon Corzine, who was counted out. He’s done whatever it takes to try to take the race back and he just might do it. See Jim Webb.

You also can’t keep diluting the brand to someone who is a ghost like image of what you believe a Democrat should look like based on what won in earlier years, when the guy you’re picking is clearly not up to the job. Tim Kaine was a cheap Mark Warner knock off, with Creigh Deeds an even cheaper, lamer knock off of Tim Kaine, with no resemblance whatsoever to Warner, let alone Webb. A political plot line that has clearly run its course.

“The other big issue is electability, and Bob McDonnell has already beaten Creigh Deeds.” – Terry McAuliffe

Read full story · Comments are closed

Out of the Mouth of Joe Biden

By on 22 September 2009

If Democrats lose the House in 2010, the Obama agenda is finished, so says Vice President Joe Biden.

And he said it at a fundraiser for a Blue Dog Democrat, the most endangered species on the planet right now.

Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats.

“If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware.

Republicans need to pick up 40 seats next November to take back control of the House. [...]

What Biden is addressing can be seen across the web, but also in conversations I’m having on all fronts. Democratic activists have been demoralized by the health care debate, especially over the summer when Pres. Obama allowed the wingnuts to wrestle control of the debate.

But it’s gotten worse after Van Jones resigned, but also because of the onslaught coming from Glenn Beck who recently got the scalp of ACORN. Though it’s my belief that the group, no matter their good works and intent, handed this issue to the right by absolutely not having a grip on what was going on amidst their organization, which wasn’t popular to write, even if it was absolutely true.

However, what Biden said shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since it would be a precursor to the unthinkable looking towards 2012.

Read full story · Comments are closed