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 | Barack Obama

File This Under Predictable

By on 25 January 2012

It comes from Fox and nobody should be surprised.

It won’t help Mitt Romney win the nomination, because he’s having so much trouble explaining himself I’m not sure anything can at this point, but it does give you an idea of the demagoguing on Romney’s wealth.

It also is illustrative for why many Americans are sick of both political parties and their unhinged partisan warfare.

WHO’S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%

I wrote the headline first yesterday: How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity? So, needless to say I knew this was coming.

No one can argue that the Swiss bank, Cayman account bingo slick Mitt is playing looks bad. That Newt Gingrich, a rich fat cat lobbyist and access peddler, is teeing off on it is as expected as the Democratic response.

Let’s just not pretend Democrats don’t play the same game.

Mitt Romney is simply the general election whipping boy on wealth in an era of Occupy.

But considering he’s one man among many, including Obama’s chief financial architects, this is quickly and predictably turning into an unseemly spectacle brimming with hubris and hypocrisy.

It’s just one reason the Occupy movement doesn’t want to identify with either Democrats or Republicans.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Of Smoke-filled Rooms and Mitch Daniels

By on 25 January 2012

Mitch Daniels, a favorite of Bill Kistrol, the man who brought the GOP Sarah Palin, gave the Republican response last night. For conservatives, it was the perfect setting, given in perfect pitch, and included the perfect message, delivered by someone who didn’t come off crazy. It’s likely why waking up today after Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, some Republicans have political morning sickness.

Newt Gingrich has the political touch Mitt Romney lacks, but he delivers it in a way that makes him look maniacal. He also has a taste for the jugular, which is why he won in South Carolina. But Newt’s style is also what has gotten him into trouble a million times before, which is why there are stories and rumors flying about nervousness inside GOP central, which is more a state of mind these days than an actual address.

An aide to Charlie Crist has gone over to Mitt Romney. It took Newt Gingrich about 2 seconds to use it against him. From Politico:

“We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign manager,” Gingrich said Tuesday at the Tick Tock Restaurant in St. Petersburg. “I thought that told you everything you need to know about this primary.”

“As governor of Massachusetts [Romney] was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-tax increase and pro- gun control,” he said. “Now that makes you a moderate in Massachusetts but it makes you pretty liberal in a Republican primary. That’s probably why he hired Charlie Crist’s staff.”

Newt Gingrich seems to be the only one who doesn’t know he’s not welcome at the top of the GOP ticket. The message is being delivered, though whether he hears it or not is another story.

It’s starting over at Townhall and it’s serious. Because when you tell Andrea Mitchell stuff like this it’s going to hit the airwaves.

ANDREA MITCHELL: “I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney can not win here in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against.”

But all this talk of smoke-filled rooms and Mitch Daniels misses one thing: the Tea Party. Are you telling me that Republicans don’t think right wing conservatives won’t pitch a fit if the Republican establishment decides to scuttle Newt’s rise to possible nominee? They really think in the Tea Party era they can get away with this?

I’d like to see that play.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Obama to Thank the Republicans Running for President

By on 24 January 2012

**UPDATED**

President Barack Obama talks with Jon Favreau, Director of Speechwriting, in the Oval Office, Jan. 23, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


During his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will announce the creation of a special unit to investigate misconduct and illegalities that contributed to both the financial collapse and the mortgage crisis. The office, part of a new Unit on Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses, will be chaired by Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, according to a White House official. – Sam Stein, Exclusive

Mitt Romney’s careening from frontrunner to hanger-on.

Newt Gingrich is pitching a fit about the press, while whining that if he can’t have his audience he’s going take his Tea Party talking points and go home.

“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”

[...] Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

Romney and Gingrich are both a gift to Pres. Obama. They’re making him look awfully good these days.

From ABC News:

Unfavorable views of Mitt Romney have soared, doubts about Newt Gingrich remain widespread and Barack Obama has advanced to his highest personal popularity in more than a year — all in advance of the State of the Union address in which Obama makes his case for a second term.

Fifty-three percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll express a favorable opinion of Obama overall, up by 5 points from last month to the most since April 2010. It can matter: Favorability is the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity.

UPDATE: OBL finish, the flag, the names, would have been a lot more moving & deserved to be, if speech had been disciplined instead of a laundry list of forgettable words.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt

By on 24 January 2012

The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of events out for people to read and connect. The Hillary Effect gets another big boost from recent reporting that bolsters the case I make, which is backed up by the facts I offer.

Available in print at Amazon.com


A memo revealed by Ryan Lizza in “The Obama Memos”, printed in The New Yorker, proves a main thesis in my book and does so beyond any doubt whatsoever.

“Change we can believe in” and other Obama slogans were mythmaking of the first order, which I prove, with character assassination the only weapon they thought could work when Obama got up against it. Because it wasn’t as if Hillary had an affair with Monica, or was responsible for NAFTA (it was proven conclusively she was against it), and Obama and Clinton had the same votes in the Senate on foreign policy (minus the Iran vote he ducked).

The reality from Lizza’s important article:

Another hard-edged decision helped make him the Democratic Presidential nominee. In early October, 2007, David Axelrod and Obama’s other political consultants wrote the candidate a memo explaining how he could repair his floundering campaign against Hillary Clinton. They advised him to attack her personally, presenting a difficult choice for Obama. He had spent years building a reputation as a reformer who deplored the nasty side of politics, and now, he was told, he had to put that aside. Obama’s strategists wrote that all campaign communications, even the slogan—“Change We Can Believe In”—had to emphasize distinctions with Clinton on character rather than on policy. The slogan “was intended to frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight,” the memo said. “Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change,” because “she’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions. . . . She embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done. She prides herself on working the system, not changing it.” The “current goal,” the memo continued, was to define Obama as “the only authentic ‘remedy’ to what ails Washington and stands in the way of progress.”

Obama’s message promised voters, in what his aides called “the inspiration,” that “Barack Obama will end the divisive trench warfare that treats politics as a game and will lead Americans to come together to restore our common purpose.” Clinton was too polarizing to get anything done: “It may not be her fault, but Americans have deeply divided feelings about Hillary Clinton, threatening a Democratic victory in 2008 and insuring another four years of the bitter political battles that have plagued Washington for the last two decades and stymied progress.”

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton’s campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama’s general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. “It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I’m a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an ‘issue contrast,’ it was entirely personal.” And, of course, it worked.

The entire traditional, elite and many new media outlets sucked up the Axelrod theory with a straw. Put more bluntly, they picked a side.

The result is the disillusionment you have among many American voters who trusted the marketing message of “change we can believe in,” but also trusted the press, which was in collusion for one candidate over another, a scourge that continues to run through our media, especially on cable, but also in new media, where if you don’t pick a side readers can’t figure out what you’re saying. That’s how used to the partisan pabulum people have become. The case I make in my book lays it out in detail.

The Obama memo details from David Axelrod emphasize what Neera Tanden is quoted saying. The only way Barack Obama could beat her was a character assault on Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if her character was really not the issue. The issue was Barack Obama not having what it took on his own.

It’s nothing new under the political stars, but it is emphatically evident it was far from the preening, above it all persona the Obama campaign pushed.

The critical component remains the media who laid the groundwork, which I prove conclusively in my book, which covers close to 20 years.

This illustrates the importance of reporters in outlets like The New Yorker to history, people who get access to historic information to which independent authors aren’t privy. It’s a lot harder for people like myself to get heard, because I’m outside the establishment, so nuggets like what Rizza offers are critical.

The New Yorker has done something very important, for which I’m grateful, because I wrote a fair, fact based, true account of the most important political contest in modern history, from a point of view that had not been heard before.

The relevancy of The Hillary Effect has never been more real and now has one more piece of historical testimony to add to its truths.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity?

By on 24 January 2012

The Wall Street Journal got an early peek at Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I wonder how many conservative Christians gave over 10% to their church in 2010. How many Democratic millionaires gave that much to their church or their favorite charity?

Did Mitt Romney abuse the tax code? No, it’s made for him. Newt Gingrich would have lowered what Romney paid to zero. George W. Bush, then Obama, by extending the Bush tax cuts, made it possible.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments, according to a summary of Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax form provided by his campaign.

Mr. Romney reported $21.7 million in income. He paid $3 million in federal taxes, slightly more than the $2.98 million he made in charitable donations. At least $1.5 million of his charitable donations went to the Mormon Church.

Of Mr. Romney’s 2010 income, he noted a capital gain of $12.6 million, taxable interest of $3.3 million, ordinary dividends of $4.9 million and smaller sums of gains and losses on business income, refunds and other income.

His 2010 return also showed that he had a financial account in Switzerland that was closed in 2010 and that he generated income from overseas investments. He also reported financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

What a layup for Democrats.

The disagreements I have with Mitt Romney on the issues are wide and long. However, the fact that Gov. Romney is a fat cat millionaire who gives a lot more than most people to his church, while playing the system set in place and prolonged by Bush, Obama and those who came before, isn’t one of them. I got news for Democrats, it won’t be to most Americans either.

Romney’s problem isn’t taxes, it remains Mitt Romney.

As for disagreements, did you hear Romney’s ridiculous answer on Afghanistan last night? How do you handle Afghanistan? “By beating them,” Romney said and “By standing behind our troops and making sure we have transitioned to the Afghan military a capacity for them to be successful in holding off the Taliban. Our mission there is to be able to turn Afghanistan and its sovereignty over to a military of Afghan descent, Afghan people that can defend their sovereignty. That’s something we can accomplish in the next couple of years.”

One of his biggest boosters, Jennifer Rubin, was ecstatic on Twitter: “by beating them? BEST answer on afghanistan EVER.”

“A couple of years” has turned into over 10, with no end in sight.

If before November anything remotely related to national security happens he’ll get his clock cleaned by Pres. Obama. Newt Gingrich would give a standard neoconservative reply, but he’ll sound credible doing it. If the economy wasn’t the issue Mitt Romney wouldn’t be running.

Looking at Newt Gingrich, with his tens of millions multiples, his lobbying and hypocrisy, right wing conservatives may choose to side with a man who’s anger is genuine, but he’s just the bookend to happy warrior Herman Cain, except Newt’s channeling the god of war. Neither man is remotely suited for the presidency and neither man can win a general election against Pres. Obama. It’s not about electability. It’s about credibility.

But a Swiss bank account and a Cayman account, really Mitt? You’ve been running for president since 2008 and you couldn’t have cleaned this up sooner?

Pres. Obama couldn’t have a better set up for his Osawatomie 2.0 State of the Union speech. He’s reportedly going to offer a word salad to make Democrats smile. Candidate Obama did the same thing in 2008 and won the election with it.

Just don’t expect reelecting Pres. Obama will give us anything different than we’ve gotten in his first term, except he’ll have no restraints whatsoever on his Republican conservatism. He’ll finally be free and unfettered to enact entitlement “reform,” something he served up first. At least it won’t be a registered Republican doing it, right?

…while our foreign policy militarism revs up and on, draining us of the resources required to do what’s required of our government here at home. Unthinkable that the amount of income taxed for Social Security should be lifted for multi-millionaires.

Obama versus Mitt or Newt, this isn’t a choice, it’s our problem.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Financial Shenanigans Amid Gingrich-Romney War

By on 23 January 2012

It’s happy days on Wall Street, while main street struggles on.

In the Obama era, like the Bush era, Wall Street is an alternate financial reality.

While the political world is riveted on Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina and his surge in Florida, there is an intense battle going on over holding banks accountable for the carnage they caused. The Financial Times reported on the proposed settlement on Friday.

An interesting report from a group called The New Bottom Line is revealing, though unsurprising. Co-director Tracy Van Slyke explains the findings:

The nation’s top six banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs — paid out $144 billion in bonuses and compensation for 2011, second only to the record $147 billion they paid out in 2007 at the height of the economic boom, according to a report released today by The New Bottom Line. Four banks – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – were awarded record high bonuses and compensation in 2011, despite their bleak stock performance during the year.

“Even though top bank executives have claimed that bonuses are down as much as 30 percent for 2011, total compensation has not decreased at all,” according to The New Bottom Line’s report, “Pulling Back The Curtain: The 1% Behind The 2011 Big Bank Bonuses.”

Many banks made up for smaller bonuses by increasing base salaries. For example, base salaries for named executive officers at Goldman Sachs more than tripled in 2011. At JPMorgan Chase, named executive officers saw salaries go up 50 percent.

There’s a meeting in Chicago that’s lighting up the progressive world, which revolves around what’s being characterized as a potential “sweetheart deal” for the banks.

Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism blasts Pres. Obama and the administration today:

The president seems to labor under the misapprehension that crimes by members of the elite must be swept under the rug because prosecuting them would destablize the system. What he misses is that we are well past the point where coverups will work, and they may even blow up before the November elections. If nothing else, his settlement pact has a non-trivial Constitutional problem which the Republicans, if they are smart, will use to undermine the deal and discredit the Administration.

To add insult to injury, Obama is apparently going to present his belated Christmas present to the banking industry as a boon to ordinary citizens. He refused to appoint a real middle class advocate, Elizabeth Warren, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but he’s not above stealing her talking points.

[...] The story did not outline terms, but previous leaks have indicated that the bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the ones to be restructured. Why is this a bad idea? The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lienholders take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administration’s instigation.

It seems obvious that the meeting in Chicago coming the day before the State of the Union is in hopes of wrenching a deal in place so Pres. Obama can announce it tomorrow night. Whether than can happen is another story.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Where Davos Meets Dueling Narratives on Possible Bank Deal

By on 23 January 2012

The idea was to get a settlement with these banks that could bring in billions of dollars in aid for hundreds of thousands of troubled homeowners who’d been served faulty foreclosure documents, some of them including forged signatures. But the shape of this agreement disturbed Schneiderman. He said banks were looking for a release from investigation and prosecution on other mortgage practices: how huge volumes of bad loans were made to begin with, and the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities. Federal-State Meeting Planned to Rally for Foreclosure Accord (h/t David Dayen)

A “consequential” meeting in Chicago? It’s all very nebulous.

This comes during the week of Davos, where news is already being made.

“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.

“A general morality gap” certainly applies on the U.S. foreclosure crisis, which is why some activists are sounding the most recent alarm.


Van Jones and George Goehl have one version:

Rumor has it that on Monday, after months of negotiation with big banks, the White House may announce a settlement that would let the banks off the hook for their role in the foreclosure crisis — paying a tiny fraction of what’s needed in exchange for blanket immunity from future lawsuits.

We hope these rumors are untrue.

President Obama has the ability to stop and change the direction of this sweetheart deal. He should reject any deal that benefits the one percent and lets the big banks get away with their crimes. Instead, the president should stand with the 99 percent and push for real accountability and a solution that will help millions of people in this country.

Bloomberg started the story rolling:

State attorneys general are being invited to meet with U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and a Justice Department official to rally support for a proposed settlement with banks over foreclosure practices, said the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.

Materials about the proposed deal are being sent to all states, and Democratic attorneys general have been asked to meet on Jan. 23 with Miller, Donovan and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

It’s unclear whether this is really coming to a head or a fake out, but enough people are concerned that it has Van Jones sounding the warning cry, with protesters ready, while there were reports last week that heavy weights like A.G. Schneiderman hadn’t yet committed to being present.

From what is available to read it sounds to me the attorneys general who want banks to be investigated for robosigning and fraudulent tactics are being squeezed. There’s little evidence that they’re falling for it.

But pressure like Van Jones is applying preemptively, isn’t a bad thing, because we’ve all seen the Obama administration time and again side with moneyed interests.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

By on 21 January 2012

NEWT GINGRICH WINS SOUTH CAROLINA

Memo to GOP Star Chamber. RE: Not Losing the *(&#! House and Senate GOP Majority w/ Newt Disaster. Time for a Secret Meeting. – Mike Murphy tweet

UPDATE (10:00 p.m.): Once again I want to make it very clear, I do not have a candidate in the race in 2012. I will not support any candidate this year. The headline is simply a statement based firmly in reality.

Romney got clocked in South Carolina. Gingrich was in full grandiosity swoon that doesn’t lend itself to synopsis. But his characterization of Pres. Obama is unrecognizable & loopy. GOTV jet engine for Democrats. If Newt doesn’t implode it’s a first. The graph on CNN with women & men listening in Florida went sky high for males, plus for women, but lower. Earlier, priceless Chris Matthews on Gingrich in Florida: “vibraphone of erogenous zones,” referring to playing all the ethnic richness of the state.

A great mentor of mine used to say you can’t win until you’ve lost the fear of failure. Mitt Romney as underdog, could he turn into a force? Republicans sure hope so.

Rick Santorum serves up working class red meat, making the pitch for vice president.

Ron Paul seems to be talking not just about 2012, but addressing what he hopes will be a revolutionary movement that will be passed, I believe, to his son Rand Paul.

_____original post below_____

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt. – Washington Examiner



The polling compilation from the Washington Examiner article linked above won’t surprise many, especially the girls around here.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ice Mitt Romney, who’s now trying to hold on instead of trying to win, at the very least represents the corporate Wall Street decay in both parties for all to see. There’s some educational benefits to this contest.

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ick Newt Gingrich reveals the rot of Republicans, but it also lets Pres. Obama off the hook on any substantive challenge that won’t be reduced to race baiting “food stamp presidency” invective.

Maybe that’s what the America people have earned for their laziness and lack of involved citizenship. People don’t seem to care that indefinite detention is real and that we continue to hold people at Gitmo without trial, because we’re too squeamish to incarcerate them with murderers in maximum security prisons. The ideals on which this country was founded are less important than the fear factor pushed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Pres. Obama’s refusal to lead continually revealing what ails us.

Leading from behind didn’t start with the bombing of Libya, though it is the first time our sleepy national press picked up on it. Pres. Obama’s entire leadership style is to lead from behind so as not to put himself too far out in front on any issue. With a majority in Congress his first two years he negotiated with himself on the stimulus, while bargaining with private insurance and drug companies, never stepping out on health care, until he sided with Stupak for optics. Leading up to the 2010 midterms, Obama hung back on offering an economic message, then extended the Bush tax cuts when he got shellacked. On the Keystone Pipeline decision this week, it wasn’t made boldly on the side of principle and the potentially dangerous environmental impact; instead it was no for now, blaming his decision on Republicans who wouldn’t give him more time, with the win more to do with activists raising a ruckus than anything. On contraception, which could have easily been embedded earlier in ACA, the decision came down just yesterday on the heels of a report that had an Obama official warning that the budget to come wouldn’t be liked by the left. This requires warning? Pres. Obama works through delivering carrot (contraceptive coverage) and stick (scuttling Plan B) tactics that depend on his political needs (the coming budget to woo independents) and have a foundation in austerity, choosing conservatism as his guide.

However, up against Newt Gingrich little would matter beyond the ick factor of this despicable man.

When it comes to women, Mr. Ick, who’s always had a problem with female voters and for very good reasons, doesn’t stand a chance against Mr. Cool.

Oh, and the video above has gone viral. …as well it should. Did you hear those squeals?

Read full story · Comments { 102 }

Sissy Farenthold Speaks Truth to Power on What We Must Do to Save America

By on 21 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

“I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and women join the unqualified men in running our government.” – Sissy Farenthold

Sissy Speaks Truth!

This week, as President of Meyerland Area Democrats, I was able to get a progressive legend to come and speak. Her name is Sissy Farenthold.

See, Sissy was the first woman elected to the Texas House, back in 1968. She took out a good ole boy and won the House seat in South Texas. Farenthold became a household name as the “den mother” of reformers in the Texas House, her courage to take on the corruption there made her a national hero. Her actions directly led to the toppling of most the corrupt figures in the legislature in what became the Sharpstown Stock Scandal.

Then in 1972 she did the unthinkable again: she ran for governor. It was a media sensation and a explosive firestorm: a liberal woman running in her own right against the conservative Democratic Party machine. Sissy’s run empowered a new generation of progressives in the state, and even by losing she scored a win. She peeled off votes from the embattled incumbent Governor Preston Smith and long groomed LBJ/ Connally protégé Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. Thus, banker Dolph Briscoe wound getting the most votes and went into a runoff with Sissy! He won the runoff and political history was made. Farenthold’s run had cost two Texas incumbents the governorship.

That same year of 1972 more history was made: she was nominated at the Democratic Nation Convention for Vice President. She is the first woman to have had such real consideration and it almost happened, but alas she got second place in the voting. She went on to run in 1974 again for governor, lost, then established many organization such as the National Women’s Political Caucus.

Although Sissy only served two terms in the Texas legislature (1968-1972) she made a massive impact on her state and the national scene. Without Sissy you do not get Ann Richards or Hillary Clinton.

At our meeting she discussed the need for all of us to start being more vocal about the plight of the people in this nation. She is a major supporter of Occupy Wall St., was in New York when it started, and yes, talked to the protestors there and here in Houston holding rallies. She warned that this election will be very difficult for Obama because of how terrible the economy is and the growing masses of poverty.

Sissy expressed outrage of the lack of a real women’s movement against the barbaric new anti-abortion and anti-voting laws . She urged the women in the crowd that the time has come to stand up and be counted. Sissy expressed that Occupy shows the way for women to start fighting the male dominated system in Washington for their economic needs.

Sissy urged that change won’t come via the crew in DC. Or at the state capitol. It would come through raising our voices and pushing hard against the corrupting forces in this nation.

You see Sissy gets that standing up can have a positive effect. She stood up to the graft in the Texas House and unleashed the toppling of many good ole boys there. In 1969 she stood up to the national Democratic Party by being the lone vote against a resolution praising LBJ’s Vietnam leadership. Someone had to say no to that war despite LBJ being the leader of her own party. We must have her kind of courage going forward.

You could say Sissy has been a Occupier for a very long time. She is a maverick, a rebel and a real progressive who fights for her values and will not be silenced by the establishment. The answer to our political problems I think is more Sissy Farentholds. It will take that to end the power of the oligarchy and moneyed interests we are living under.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Our Womb is Finally Equal (at least for now)

By on 20 January 2012

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday. The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013. – The Hill

Viagra has been covered in health care policies for years. Now, the Obama administration has instructed the Department of Health and Human Services that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employers health care plan. An exception will be made for religious zealots, represented by Rick Santorum and the anti birth control contingent on the religious right, which lives in both political parties.

Pres. Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not a great bill, so don’t get me started. However, there are really important parts of it worth praising. What the right likes to call Obamacare covers preventive health services for free for women, with the definition of what that means a step by step process. The announcement today on contraceptive coverage is one of those steps.

As a reminder, here’s part of what was announced in August 2011:

Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:

  • well-woman visits;
  • screening for gestational diabetes;
  • human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
  • sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
  • human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
  • FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
  • breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
  • domestic violence screening and counseling.

I’m all for applauding this action, but as a liberal, I find the notion of universal birth control a public health issue, for which there should be no religious exception for institutions. That should be a personal choice issue, not an institutional one. I also believe that universal health care is a right, not a privilege. Unfortunately, if you’re poor it’s the latter.

For the bots ready to blow, this isn’t about Pres. Obama, because any Democratic president would be offering this very thing, with the religious exception, because that’s what the big two parties are all about, the larger public and good of the poor always secondary. So, excuse me if I find any applause as silly as cheering for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which is the bare minimum women of all political parties should expect from our politicians in the second decade of the 21st century.

But for some reason women in this country are always satisfied with less, putting political allegiances above issues of equality that should bring all women together. Partisanship separates us from accomplishing the biggest goals, which include bringing poor women into the fold, which can only happen through universal health care.

To drive home the point of just how backward our country remains, read Sarah Posner on the challenges already moving against the Obama administration’s sanity:

UPDATE: The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which, as I reported in my long religious freedom piece, represents both a Catholic college and an evangelical university in challenging the rule, has issued a statement (tellingly calling the rule an “abortion drug mandate”) claiming that the rule will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. As other observers have noted, opponents of the contraception mandate have claimed that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor, which recognized a “ministerial exception” that prevents churches from being by “ministerial” employees under federal employment discrimination laws. The Beckett Fund makes this argument in its statement, but legal observers have noted the narrow holding in that case. The opponents of the Obama administration decision like the Beckett Fund does in its statement, will attempt to make the Hosanna-Tabor into a broad statement against government interference in church affairs in an attempt to bolster their claims against the contraception mandate.

Release the lawyers and let them fight it out.

We’re allowing serious encroachment into freedoms won through Griswold and Roe v. Wade already, something I write about at length in my book, in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” People on both sides are afraid of the outcome. It’s time Americans see in the light of day what’s happening in secret across this country, which amped up after Democrats blew the 2010 midterm elections, releasing an assault on unions, the middle class, as well as a war on women from the right.

This issue is one reason I find Ron Paul’s squeals of liberty absurd, even hypocritical. He makes a mockery of his Libertarian stance when he puts himself on the side of the freedom is just for men crowd. He said in the debate that abortion is violent and he’s against violence. I guess he never considers the violence that hits a woman who is hit with an unwanted pregnancy she can’t handle. Has he never seen a poor woman in the throes of this type of destruction? Can he not imagine her anguish? Unfortunately, very few politicians can today, because we have a dearth of truly inspiring and compassionate leaders.

Women’s individual freedom is actually a conservative notion. Don’t tread on me and individual rights, which are heralded as sacrosanct on the right by conservatives, stop when it comes to a woman’s own freedoms for them, but as we saw in the health care debate, for Democrats, too. Why people don’t see this hypocrisy for what it is astounds me.

Music provided by the great chirp Etta James who passed away today.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Gingrich Soars on Wings of Obama Fluffing Media*

By on 20 January 2012

*See note below

“The liberal media,” she added, “and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time. … I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. … “Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. – Daily Caller

The headline I offer above won’t be used by the insider press, because they’re not that honest or blunt. However, the Obama fluffing media is the foundation for what may manifest on Saturday, which is a Newt Gingrich win in South Carolina. Politico represents the kinder, gentler argument:

By twice castigating one of the right’s perennial boogeymen — the press — Gingrich made a gut-level connection with conservatives who think they get a raw deal from the news media. – Politico

Sarah Palin whipping up anti-establishment conservatives is a perfect play when the American media is woven into the narrative. It comes at a time in an election year that is already shaping up to be advantage Pres. Obama in the media, though not for the same reasons as it was in 2008, which is proven in my book The Hillary Effect.

But Palin calling Brian Ross part of the liberal media reveals she’s just not all that astute as an analyst, nor is her audience; though details and facts aren’t the point. Ross was part of the ABC crew who trumpeted Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress, complete with composite picture that included candidate Hillary, when Clinton’s campaign released the documents of when she was first lady. All Ross and ABC wanted was coverage, which they got, as they did yesterday with Marianne Gingrich.

John King had to ask the question, though you can disagree it had to come at the top of the debate, however, making King the subject is a distraction. It’s not for the right and conservatives. So Gingrich teeing off on King, who did not flinch, with a bank shot to the entire media, is not only what Newt does, but taps into the foundation of anger that’s been festering among the Republican based since 2008. As you saw in the hall, it’s a winner, but for a good reason.

That’s because in 2008 conservatives and Republicans watched candidate Obama get glowing press and very little of the scrutiny, with their anticipation it will happen again justified. On Morning Joe, Ms. Brzezinski plays the role of spokeswoman for the White House, though that’s nothing compared to what we’ll see on Fox News Channel once a nominee is selected by the GOP. However, if past is prologue, Fox’s partisanship will not be repeated elsewhere.

Even Joe Scarborough talked about conservatives being sick of being “marginalized.” It’s not a ludicrous statement when you consider Fox News Channel’s prowess, but also Scarborough’s own network, which rarely offers criticism of Pres. Obama, even when earned.

You can see that policy best represented by Chris Matthews calling Andrew Sullivan a “genius” for writing his Newsweek piece this week, calling Obama’s critics “dumb.” It’s echoed by Ed Schultz and all the way through primetime. It doesn’t bother Matthews or his bosses that Sullivan has been disgraced through his harangues against Sarah Palin, his ridiculous intelligence and race ramblings, both of which have the virtue of being totally fact free.

In a year when Republicans are serving up no one who can beat Pres. Obama, conservatives are standing up to say they at least want someone to state their case and communicate to America that they’re mad as hell at the media playing defense for Pres. Obama. The target of that ire is not only Barack Obama, but a media who fell in love with this brilliant political athlete who naively believed he alone could change the American world of politics and suckered the entire American media, minus yours truly and a few others, that he could make it happen.

It’s not entirely Pres. Obama’s fault to believe this nonsense since he came into Washington with the American press at his feet.

TM NOTE: The title of this piece was chosen to make a point. That the media choosing sides ends up impacting our politics in a way that benefits no one, especially when it elevates the likes of Newt Gingrich. As we begin another election cycle, it’s important to stress what happened previously, because as we saw last night, the pro Obama media bias from 2008 is very fresh in the minds of conservatives.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Newt’s ride on race meets Marianne

By on 19 January 2012



Just when you thought Newt Gingrich couldn’t sink any lower.

He’s even allowing his daughters to fight his fights.

If the abysmal parade of performers in the Republican primary hasn’t sufficiently embarrassed rank and file conservatives across the country the culmination of the nomination fight in South Carolina should have by now. However, before it’s over, Newt and his supporters could be forced to face his former wife, whom he cheated on with his current wife Callista.

Drudge broke the story earlier, teasing all sorts of drama inside ABC corporate, complete with “suits,” hand-wringing and “ethical” considerations over whether to air the interview with Marianne Gingrich.

Unless it’s a national security issue they should unload the interview and let Newt Gingrich fend for himself. Presuming it’s truthful, there’s no reason not to air it, certainly the vote on Saturday shouldn’t sway anyone. People shouldn’t start holding stories because of an outcome you can’t predict, especially when the circumstances are outside what you should consider. It’s either news or it’s not; you break it when you get it.

There is something perfect about Newt’s campaign releasing the above ad now, which they title “the moment,” right as the South Carolina crescendo begins to resolve. Rick Perry had one of his own moments during Monday’s debate, conjuring up Civil War memories, as he tries to resurrect his sorry campaign over the stench of a new 21st century southern strategy, led by Newt.

As everyone knows by now, Juan Williams helped set the fire on the current lame war when he called Gingrich out on labeling Pres. Obama the “food stamp president,” which had only one meaning.

“Can’t you see that this is viewed at a minimum as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?” – Juan Williams

One of Gingrich’s supporters caught on tape, played on “Hardball,” at an event after debate day said she was glad Newt put Williams in his place.

They’re not even trying to hide it and Pres. Obama isn’t even on the trail yet. Mitt Romney’s got his own whispered version, “Let’s fight for the American we love.”

Newt shifted on his feet from the weight of the answer that came next and what it implied, simply saying “no.” It was just the latest in a contagion of Newtism race baiting bravado.

Enter Marianne Gingrich as reports of her ex-husband closing a bit on Romney are dropping, with insider political analysts claiming that Newt may still be able to come back. It would be to no avail eventually.

Whatever Donald Trump started with his birtherism, Newt Gingrich has decided needs to be stripped of artifice.

Maybe Marianne Gingrich can do what none of his opponents have been able to accomplish. Finally rid us of this ugly American.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Where are the Lunchpail Democrats?

By on 17 January 2012



Lunchpail Democrats don’t exist.

To bring the point home, Pres. Obama is now warning Democratic activists to brace themselves for the budget. But after capitulating to conservatism over Democratic economic values throughout his entire first term what comes next really shouldn’t require a warning. From the Hill:

Top White House officials are warning liberal and labor leaders to brace themselves for President Obama’s budget proposal. – Obama warns left: You won’t like budget

If Lunchpail Democrats did exist they would be boycotting the Democratic National Convention, which is being held in right-to-work North Carolina. They would also have challenged Pres. Obama’s conservatism, instead of saying the debate wasn’t worth the effort, while making excuses for him when he embraced austerity.

Obama’s Bank of America decision, on top of his right-to-work reelection self-interest, on top of everything that came before, which is magnified by a warning from the White House on Obama’s next budget, all of it points to a plundering of Democratic principles inside a political party that stands for nothing anymore.

Lunchpail Republicans in Indiana not only have more self respect and principle to stand up for the middle class and working families, as well as unions, than Pres. Obama and the entire Democratic Party, but this group of Republicans are willing to challenge their own at the ballot box to prove it.

How arrogant are Obama’s conservative apologists to think these things don’t matter? Coupled with slick Mitt on the other side, who can’t even convince conservatives, they think they’ve got a ticket to ride to reelection. So, team Obama and his conservative fans think they can do anything and get away with it and why not?

We keep hearing and reading how people feel they have no choice but to vote “lesser of two evils” and back Pres. Obama. I certainly feel their frustration and it’s their vote, their choice. But what will change and what will be gained by hoping the same action will produce different results? How will the Democratic Party and the ideals at its foundation change with more of the same?

Or maybe as far as the Democratic Party is concerned it’s just too late.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Romney Promises Tax Returns, Lower Top Marginal Rate to 25%

By on 17 January 2012

Given these advantages, Romney now holds 35 percent support for the nomination, with his closest competitors bunched in the teens — 17 percent for Newt Gingrich, the latest in a string of contenders to see his support collapse; a steady 16 percent for Ron Paul; and 13 percent for Rick Santorum, who is up 10 points since his strong second in Iowa, but still far behind Romney nationally. – ABC News


This is a terrific ad by Santorum, which Mark Halperin reports is going up today, the day after he whined about Romney’s ads. It shows how it’s done against Romney. I’ve said it before, but why these guys didn’t go this route earlier just doesn’t make any sense. It’s also one reason why Republicans are very likely stuck with the guy. The other reason is Mitt’s machine, which no one in the race can replicate.

However, South Carolina isn’t settled yet.

Santorum didn’t have a great debate last night, but it wasn’t bad, going after Romney on felons voting and drawing some blood. It’s just Newt Gingrich was on his game, with one-liners at the ready. He also got a standing ovation at one point. It was Newt’s night.

Romney’s up 23 points in the latest national Gallup poll. These guys got their acts together way too late. Ron Brownstein:

None of the other candidates delivered a cogent and sustained ideological argument against Romney. Faced with a potential win-or-go-home scenario in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Romney’s opponents have belatedly sharpened their ideological indictment against him, portraying the former Massachusetts governor as a moderate whom conservatives cannot trust. Newt Gingrich delivered an excoriating version of that critique last Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation; Rick Santorum unveiled a like-minded South Carolina ad on Monday. But in one of their final opportunities to deliver that message to a big audience before Saturday’s critical vote, each of Romney’s opponents whiffed. No one mentioned his Massachusetts health care reform law (though it stars in Santorum’s new ad), and it was Romney himself who brought up his conversion on abortion. None in fact made a systematic argument of any sort against Romney. The attacks he faced were episodic, disjointed and often defensive, which leads to point two…

The part in bold above is key. You can’t beat a man with a massive campaign machine through hunt and peck political tactics. You need a strategy.

I know conservative Republicans keep being quoted as wanting to see Gingrich debate Obama, but then what? Do these people actually believe Newt Gingrich can win the presidency? I can’t name one state he could win.

The debate foreshadowed it’s going to be rough all the way to Saturday.

As for Ron Paul, Fox News Channel had people send in tweets to judge the candidates responses to questions, using hashtags of #answer or #dodge. John Roberts put up a graph with Ron Paul the only one never in negative territory, while Mitt Romney was in the minus category the entire debate. For what it’s worth, it proves Paul’s supporters were out in force, while Romney’s were definitely not.

Some other guy with a twang was on the stage, but he was inconsequential.

Mitt Romney did not have a great night. Newt bested him on foreign policy and at one point it looked like Romney was simply rolling out neoconservative talking points. He seemed like a man coasting and almost caught off guard.

Romney said some time around April and if he’s the nominee, he’ll release his tax returns. He also mentioned raising the Social Security eligibility age, as well as means testing seniors, both of which I believe Obama wants to do as well and could very well do in a second term; it brings them to a place of likely common ground. Then Romney drew a line on taxes, saying he wants to lower the top marginal tax rate to 25%, bringing it down from 35%, where it stands now. Pres. Obama wants to let it go back to Clinton era numbers, which would bring it up to 39.6%.

There’s a lot more from the ABC/Washington Post poll, which is worth a look, good and bad for Mitt Romney.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Writer of Red Tails Not Invited to White House Screening

By on 16 January 2012



The film is by George Lucas and debuts this week, January 20. It has been 20 years in the making.

Pres. Obama had a screening of the film recently, but he didn’t invite the writer, John Ridley, which was confirmed today on “Morning Joe.” He “didn’t make the cut.” His wife was not amused.

I hope everyone puts this film on your calendar.

The Tuskegee Airmen are a phenomenal part of history that deserves to be celebrated, commemorated and remembered.

My Uncle Dick would have saluted these men.

We can do so ourselves by seeing this film.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer

By on 16 January 2012



The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, gets it right, even if Andrew Sullivan’s nervous writing on the subject gets it wrong. Anyone believing Pres. Obama would have a presidency any different than has manifested is dumb. However, it’s certainly not because Obama’s long game will outsmart his critics, as Sullivan posits.

It’s because there was nothing in Obama’s past that pointed to decisive progressive or F.D.R. leadership, which has resulted in many of his current critics on the left being disappointed and disillusioned. The media in ’08 never bothered to tell that story, with the very few who did, of which I was an early writer, being vilified for our efforts.

I have chronicled why since 2007, having interviewed and talked to some of the Chi-town crowd who saw Obama rise (in 2007) while following candidate Obama on the trail in early 2008. I outlined it further in my piece, “Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama.”

The Obama supporter in the video shown here is “not disappointed by Pres. Obama.”

I’m not either.

The difference is that I’m not as exhausted as this particular Obama supporter seems to be, because I don’t feel the need to defend him or attempt a pitch on his presidency that comes with no enthusiasm and gives lesser of two evils as the foundation. Watching the video is actually depressing instead of convincing.

I’m also not disappointed to say most of the things Pres. Obama has accomplished most any Democratic president would have also done, which may be part of the reason most die hard Obama fans always end up their arguments talking about the appalling choices on the right.

It’s what has led me to the view from a recovering partisan outlined in “The Party’s Over.”

The exhausted Obama supporter in Newsweek‘s case is the conservative who recently endorsed Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, whose rhetorical flailing can’t do anything but remind everyone of his convoluted and corrupt theories of intelligence and race, which is mixed in with his bankrupt C.S.I. ramblings on Sarah Palin paternity, which I chronicle in my book. But who can forget Sullivan’s main case for Pres. Obama in ’08, his face. Fan politics has never been so fully defined.

That Andrew Sullivan is for reforming entitlements, and fiscally conservative, is unlikely to be remembered in his case for Pres. Obama. There are few heartfelt endorsements coming from anywhere, with “Republicans are Worse” the main Obama reelect theme. Torture runs deep on pluses with Sullivan, as it should, and DADT is important, a policy who’s time had come, with activists the prime movers on this one. Sullivan’s certainly not concerned about the erosion of women’s individual freedoms, which exploded when Pres. Obama refused to make the economic case in 2010, handing legislatures across the country over to the right that led to an assault on unions, the middle class and a war on women’s rights. He seems unmoved by the Bush-Cheney neoconservatism in Pres. Obama’s foreign policy, including indefinite detention cloaked in the window dressing of an executive order that is more marketing than substance, because the un-American option remains a choice.

However, the real issue with Sullivan’s case on Barack Obama’s 8-year, long-haul case is that it is inarguably the worst Republican field in modern history. No one doubts Pres. Obama is beatable, but in order to do so you at least have to nominate someone for whom voting is a worthy exercise and viable option that doesn’t make you gag. That someone so unloved, barely respected, even vilified by conservatives, will be the Republican nominee proves that the challenger Pres. Obama will likely face is someone for whom conservatives can barely vote.

Mitt Romney is a one-percenter in an Occupy era who can’t even close with Republicans.

Sure he’s the best candidate among the field, but what does that even mean this year? Better than Rick Perry, who can’t remember three bullet points of his own philosophy? Better than big government conservative Rick Santorum who doesn’t believe in birth control, thinks gays are worse for children than an orphanage, neither stance embraceable by independents, and is a “pro-life” politician who has a blood lust for war? Jon Hunstman, the smartest man in the field— Oh, right. A better choice than the hypocritical Newt Gingrich, an ethics challenged, multi-married opportunistic, tantrum prone priss who would rather take his party down by challenging their core foundation with gas bag rhetoric based on lies to get it done?

Then there is Ron Paul, whom Sullivan endorsed recently. Paul is more anti-war than the once anti-Iraq war market-pitching, regime change, indefinite detention backing “Democratic” president. Paul also wants to take on the drug war, something that hits minorities more than any other policy, and honor civil liberties, which Sullivan conveniently ignores for the very reasons I just stated in the previous paragraph. He simply can’t vote for the Republican rabble. Paul also doesn’t have a path to win, so Obama’s the next best stop for Sullivan, an obvious lesser than other evils voter.

He’s not alone.

So, if Pres. Obama succeeds in beating Mitt Romney, assuming he prevails, is it really due to the President’s long term strategy? No, it’s not. It’s due to voters feeling they have no other choice, because it’s been obvious for some time the American electorate wants one, including Andrew Sullivan.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats

By on 15 January 2012


As much as our national media deserves criticism, a central focus in my book, some are at least offering alternative candidates airtime. Chuck Todd interviewed Rocky Anderson when he announced the formation of the Justice Party, Joe Scarborough invited Buddy Roemer on Morning Joe, with George Stephenopoulos the latest, though there are other examples as well. Our media is starting to at least acknowledge what’s going on outside the establishment bubble, which is important, because free media can at least get these candidates and the cause to challenge the status quo into the national conversation.

Stephen Colbert easily got as much time as Rick Perry on ABC’s “This Week,” now back with George Stephanopoulos at the helm. In the race against Romney, one of the most hilarious and effective counter intuitive punches was leveled by Colbert today through “Mitt the Ripper,” making a mockery of both sides where Mitt Romney is concerned. It had the added virtue and punch of representing what Ron Paul is doing, but also, if to a much lesser extent, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson.

Colbert satirizes the over the top tactics to make Mitt Romney the target of all that ails our country, our economy and the corporate tactics that are taking down the middle class. Colbert’s satirical attack on Romney also has the credibility of not only representing Newt Gingrich’s banchee Bain cry, but also partisan Democrats who have their heads in the sand about their own side’s culpability where crony capitalism is concerned, which I wrote about this past week.

From ABC:

Colbert’s super PAC, which was re-named The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC after Colbert announced his exploratory committee, launched an ad in South Carolina this week labeling Mitt Romney a “serial killer.”

The Colbert super PAC ad is an obvious spoof of anti-Romney ads being run by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC in the Palmetto State. Gingrich has said any untrue statements should be removed from the ad, but, because the PAC does not coordinate with Gingrich, it has refused to re-edit the ads, which some say stretch the truth about Romney’s time at Bain Capital.

Colbert took a similar tone, saying he had “nothing to do” with the “serial killer” ads.

“I am not calling anyone a serial killer,” Colbert said. “That’s not my super PAC.”

On the other side, seriously challenging whether other conservative candidates are an alternative, there is Ron Paul. His anti-war, non-interventionist foreign policy is resonating with young people like no candidate in decades, which is wrapped in an economic message that’s simple and clear.

Paul’s candidacy has brought about a real battle inside progressive circles on the power and potential of Ron Paul’s influence in 2012, with a growing number of anti-war progressives willing to forgive clear issues Dr. Paul raises about his aversion to any safety net, his libertarian notions of freedom and liberty that don’t apply to women, as well as his states rights flippancy on civil rights. However, it’s close to inarguable that anyone who wants a real shift in the way we handle our foreign policy and economic policy, both of which are crippling what we can do here at home, has a real reason to consider voting for Ron Paul, since there will always be points of disagreements on any candidate chosen. The one thing you can say about Paul is that he’s the most philosophically consistent and transparent politician in the race today.

The pressing issues of 2012 include the erosion of civil liberties, which Pres. Obama and Democrats have approved, going along with Bush-Cheney neoconservatism terrorism polices, as well as the model of regime change. Economically, Obama, Democrats, Republicans and the majority of conservatives still approve of deep foreign intervention and a cascade of military involvement. Both parties evidently are convinced that America’s economic engine depends on defense expenditures, which is as frighting a thought as it is plausibly true. When it comes to priorities, neither Democrats or Republicans are offering an answer.

Robin Koerner wrote about the challenges in 2012 last summer on Huffington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

Obama fans and Democratic voters say in emails and tweets to me all the time that they’re “trapped” and have no choice but to vote for another Obama term. If you choose to vote for another 4 years of Democratic capitulation to conservatism, fiscal profligacy that benefits the 1%, and foreign policy intervention and militarism, that’s your choice. Go for it, just don’t say you have no choices.

Another issue is the American electorate is still comprised of a majority of people who are embarrassed about being associated with candidates who are outside the system. People want to be associated with the winner and outsiders like Ron Paul, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson or any other politician taking on the establishment can’t win, because the money is stacked against them. When the American electorate won’t step outside their self-imposed partisan boxes they construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A couple of emails from people on the subject, one on Rocky Anderson’s candidacy: “does Anderson/JUSTICE grab you?”

One person wrote the following, with an accompanying link that encourages Democrats to register Republican to support Ron Paul and send a message:

Interesting idea from “George Washington” blog: to get the issues of war, civil liberties at least debated, register Republican one time only, vote Ron Paul in Rep. Primary. Then figure out what to do in the general.. –link provided in email went to this text–

Forget what you’ve been taught … the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are virtually identical on all core matters.
Obama, Gingrich, Romney and the whole sorry lot are for more war, for further crackdowns on our Constitutional liberties, and for giving the Federal Reserve all of the unchecked power that it wants.

Don’t fall for the old divide-and-conquer trick.

Whatever you may think of Ron Paul, he has consistently championed three core American for three decades. Paul has consistently argued for the following three positions which Americans overwhelmingly favor:

  • Stop the never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars
  • Restore our liberties, and stop the march towards martial law, indefinite detention idiocy, and the crack down on the Internet
  • Rein in or abolish the Federal Reserve
  • None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates support these positions, and the mainstream media has done everything it can to try to squelch debate on these issues.

Somewhere between Stephen Colbert calling Mitt Romney a “serial killer,” with the Democrats mimicking that cry without any hint of irony of their own crony capitalism, and Ron Paul’s power with many people, it’s clear no matter what the eventual outcome is in November that the 20th century paradigm of two party rule is being challenged in fundamental ways that could over time bring about its replacement.

Obama fans charge that this conversation is actually about trying to depress the vote, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Others posit that it’s about voting or starting a third party, which is part of the small thinking that permeates our political discourse, because choices outside the establishment parties exist today, with the options stronger and more viable than they’ve ever been.

The intent of this conversation is to inspire and empower people to think about their vote and what it means when they cast it for either Democrats or Republicans, considering what each represent. Both of these establishment parties are bought and paid for by corporations and Wall Street, as are their institutional backers. All part of the blind partisan pack who either squeal “Obama is a socialist” or contend Romney is a “serial killer” capitalist, while railing at Ron Paul as a wacko or worse to make you embarrassed about your vote, simply because Paul and others are outsiders taking on the status quo.

Consider being a change agent instead of a person captive to the marketing of change, which comes from both sides.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow, a Super PAC not associated with Stephen Colbert’s South Carolina presidential campaign, is not responsible for this message.


Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Romney Takes Big Lead in South Carolina

By on 15 January 2012

**UPDATED**

Mitt Romney’s opened a whopper of a lead in South Carolina. Who says negative attacks can’t work, this time in reverse, especially when they shoot as wildly as When Mitt Romney Came To Town, and go well wide of the mark.

The poll showed 37 percent of South Carolina Republican voters back Romney. Congressman Ron Paul and former Senator Rick Santorum tied for second place with 16 percent support.

Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, has fallen far back after holding a strong lead in South Carolina in December. He was in fourth place at 12 percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll.

[update] However, the consensus is that though Mitt Romney is ahead, it’s not by nearly as much as the Reuters/IPSO’s poll claims.

As you’ll see from the video above, individual stories continue to follow Mitt Romney everywhere. One unemployed woman said God told her to find him, which resulted in Romney giving her cash.

“God didn’t tell me to go to nobody else, he told me to pray for Romney,” said Williams, when asked why she has decided to support Romney. “I listened to the Lord.”

Newt Gingrich is now getting booed for his efforts against Mitt Romney and capitalism.

It’s got to be a sobering moment for some Democratic partisans readying the confetti guns, thinking that Bain Capital will be an easy shoot and score for them. Scalpel approach could prove deadly, but when has any campaign not preferred a machete? I’m still not convinced there won’t be ways around it for Romney, especially since the people most appalled are very likely not going to vote for him anyway.

Rick Santorum got too little way too late from “150 Christian leaders, business leaders and conservative activists” who endorsed him yesterday.

From the in case you missed it on Friday files, Standard & Poor’s went wild, playing slasher Over There.

S&P lowered its long-term rating on Cyprus, Italy, Portugal and Spain by two notches, and cut its rating on Austria, France, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia by one notch.

The move puts highly indebted Italy on the same BBB+ level as Kazakhstan and pushes Portugal into junk status.

The credit-rating agency affirmed the current long-term ratings for Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Americans for Prosperity, a Koch backed group, is doing a $5 million ad buy against Pres. Obama on Solyndra, which will hit during the State of the Union on January 24.

On SOPA, the White House tries to straddle the issue (I know, you’re shocked), while lawmakers are getting creamed by constituents (keep those emails and phone calls coming). From EFF:

Looks like proponents of the Internet Blacklist Bills are finally beginning to realize that they won’t be able to ram through massive, job-killing legislation without a fight. First, Sen. Patrick Leahy, sponsor of the PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA), announced on Thursday that he would recommend that the Senate further study the dangerous DNS blocking provisions in that bill before implementation. Then, a group of six influential senators wrote to Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, urging that the Senate slow down and postpone the upcoming vote on PIPA. Sen. Ben Cardin, a co-sponsor of PIPA, also took a measured stance against the bill, saying he “would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written.” Cardin cited consituent activism as the primary reason for the about-face.

Oh, and if you’re thinking of seeing the film Iron Lady, you should reconsider.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Obama’s Keynote at Bank of America Stadium?

By on 14 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Photo by Pete Souza

So what are Democrats getting out of our president when it comes to issues like being forceful against the ruthless practices of big banks?

How about President Obama having his acceptance speech at the Bank of America stadium. That should play real well with the 99 percent.

The DNC decided to run the 2012 convention out of non-corporate donations, but they are having problems getting enough funding this way. So they are working to find away around their rules. From Bloomberg:

The host committee is trying to work around the restrictions, imposed by Obama, by asking for “in-kind” contributions from corporations and accepting unlimited funds from non-profit organizations such as charitable foundations associated with major corporations.

Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp. and chairman of the Charlotte host committee, has tried to clarify the rules for potential donors.

At a Dec. 15 briefing at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington, Rogers, along with Steve Kerrigan, the convention’s chief executive officer, sought to enlist federally registered lobbyists, who are barred from contributing directly to Obama’s campaign or convention, to get corporate clients to help underwrite the convention…

The 1 percent has been offered a set of great packages if they give big money. Here is what the 1 percent can get:

A pitch from the host committee outlines four different tiers for high-level donors and what they can expect to receive for their contribution.

At the $1 million “presidential” level, donors will receive a “premier uptown hotel room,” a “platinum credential package,” a “platinum events package,” as well as “concierge services.”

At the $500,000 “Gold Rush” level, donors are given a hotel room, a credential and a “premiere events package.”

What do these packages have that most won’t get: access, one on one meetings with the President and so forth.

This is the problem with big money in politics. Access for the rich to POTUS, influencing policy decisions while rank and file party members and activists are locked out.

It is antithetical to me for the Democrats to hold their prime time moment at Bank of America stadium. Grassroots Democrats say they are opposed to the power of big banks, Wall Street and corporations yet wind up with leaders who see no problem hoarding money from big oil, big corporations, and the rest of the 1%. Something has to change.

And progressives have begun to react to this potential move to the B of A stadium. A few tweets:

David Sirota
How Poetic and Appropriate: “Obama May Move DNC Convo Speech to Bank of America Stadium” http://bit.ly/z7NNN7

Susie Madrak
Obama May Move Convention Speech to Bank of America Stadium – Bloomberg http://bloom.bg/wmIKC8 via @BloombergNews// The REAL audience!

Meanwhile so many are angry with BofA over their practices, and as the bank continues to face legal hot waters, it might start closing branches in parts of the country.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The Cutter Memo on Mitt and Bain

By on 13 January 2012

Politico highlights the Obama team’s memo hitting Mitt Romney on Bain Capital, which was always going to be their front line offense.

What’s going to be good for the Obama team to exploit has, however, backfired badly on Newt Gingrich. After being lambasted by every Republican from McCain and Huckabee, to Rudy and Rush, as well as the single donor to his Super PAC, Newt’s backtracking.

“I am calling for the Winning Our Future Super-PAC supporting me to either edit its “King of Bain” advertisement and movie to remove its inaccuracies, or to pull it off the air and off the internet entirely,” Gingrich said in a statement. – Gingrich Repudiates Super PAC For Inaccurate Video He Praised

Is there anything funnier than a swift-boater caught with his hate campaign in shambles?

Obama’s team needs “King of Bain,” because another troubling aspect of Mitt Romney’s potential nomination for Pres. Obama is that he’s just not that scary to most people. So now “King of Bain” is about to become fodder to stoke voters’ fears. Team Obama doesn’t have much else.

It’s no secret that there is a lack of enthusiasm in Democratic and progressive circles. In a pool report the other night from Chicago, the White House made a point to emphasize the excitement at the fundraiser was real and it was big. If they can’t rouse the troops in Chi-town where can they?

So, it hardly matters to the Obama team if the pro-Gingrich PAC film “King of Bain” got 4 Pinocchios from Glenn Kessler, and that when it comes to the American Corporation, the Democrats have their own Mitt Romneys, many of whom have given gargantuan sums to Barack Obama, but also earned more in Pres. Obama’s first term than in all 8 of George W. Bush’s.

The Obama team’s goal is to make Mitt Romney a pariah. Someone who is scary in order to rev up excitement in Democratic circles so people rise up and vote. Reviews on “The King of Bain” are immaterial for this effort.

Mitt Romney is Satan.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, Tim Geithner is Moses.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }