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 | culture

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

On the Diane Rehm show today, according to my husband who sometimes listens to NPR while he’s driving from order to order, a man called in. They were discussing the Administration’s decision on contraceptive coverage. The gist of what the man asked, as I got it from Mark, is that the man said he got a vasectomy from a Catholic hospital, so why can’t women get contraception? The lawyer on with Ms. Rehm was a bit startled, then said, he shouldn’t have.

I’ll stack my religious faith and spirituality up against anyone on the right, because that’s what this comes down to, right? That’s the battle on which the religious conservatives want to fight. It’s unseemly, because it thrives on division and distracts from the actual purpose of Pres. Obama’s policy decision. Dividing secular public policy meant to aid women, particularly those in the challenged means category, and helping them to be more autonomous and capable of planning their lives, which begins with pregnancy.

As with anything connected to women’s freedoms, religious conservatives, no matter the political party, have chose to attach a political cost to helping women maintain more freedom. Already, David Axelrod has telegraphed the White House will compromise. This is where Democrats and Republicans become one large political party, both willing to use women’s autonomy as a chess piece on their political play board. It’s why my vote is up for grabs in the upcoming 2012 elections.

The connection to something greater, however it’s defined, has guided me throughout my life. This is part of what I talk about in my book, which appears in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” That my book has never been more timely when it comes to that chapter and the current discussion is enriching.

Below is the text of an email sent out by Catholics for Choice. It lays out some of the President’s faith allies, of which I am one.

Major Mainstream Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage In Health Care Reform

February 8, 2012, Washington, DC – Today, twenty major mainstream religious leaders released a statement supporting the January 20, 2012 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptive services must be covered by most insurance policies without deductibles or co-pays, and that only purely sectarian organizations are exemptfrom this requirement.

Catholics for Choice; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; Concerned Clergy for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Divinity School; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish Women International;
Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; the National Council of Jewish Women; Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Religious Coalition to Reproductive Choice; the Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union Theological Seminary; Unitarian Universalist Association; and United Church of Christ represent millions of religious leaders
and people of faith across the country.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:

“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions.

We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”

Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women’s Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonniveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. – The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama, by Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson reveals one of the fundamental problems with Republicanism today. It’s not conservative at all anymore.

In a rambling, self-importantly arrogant post, Erickson pontificates on what he thinks he knows about being a Christian through a literal analysis of the Bible. Then he stands in judgment over Pres. Obama.

The self-righteous never see irony coming.

There is nothing Christian in Erickson’s harangue against Pres. Obama. There is also nothing conservative about it.

Conservatism has a measure of grounding when you listen to analysis of it from people who don’t wrap their religion through their conservative ideology.

A religious conservative can be against abortion. But an ideological conservative, while being against abortion and not wanting to fund it, cannot simultaneously take a person’s liberty away by forcing pregnancy on a woman when natural law protects her right to personal autonomy.

The very notion of conservatism is rooted in personal liberty. Whether religious conservatives like it or not, to be true to conservatism, they must honor that liberty. Today, they do not.

Any conservative with intellectual or political integrity would understand that conservatism of any depth must be rooted in the fundamental idea that interrupting the freedoms of any person through the intrusion of government, whether federal or state, is abridging a person’s autonomy in a manner that is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

Religious conservatism or fundamentalist-based Republicanism is actually a self-righteous marketing attempt to make people like Erickson and his ilk think they are on higher ground and have the ultimate interpretation of right and wrong. You hear it through Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the self-righteous radio crowd.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a conservative, but think religious dogma should hold more sway than an individual who’s privacy and personal freedoms are innate to being a person in the first place.

Conservatism without religion can make sense.

Add religion, however, and conservatism becomes authoritarian in nature, relegating women to non-persons, second class citizens and slaves, because the state or federal government, through religious dictates, is now in charge.

Conservatism’s very nature is about doing less, leaving the individual alone to prosper and live without interference, which certainly should include women.

However, since Ronald Reagan invited the “Moral Majority,” which was neither moral or a majority then or now as it exists in other forms, conservatism was bastardized into something that now includes a campaign to take over the domain of a woman’s very body through means of the state or federal government.

Erick Erickson sees no problem with this, because he’s a religious conservative, not a conservative.

You can be religious and you can be a conservative, but once you put the two together in an ideological philosophy you lose the moorings of anything that has integral grounding in what conservatism actually means.

Not even Ron Paul passes this test as a Libertarian. He’s said before that he’s against abortion, because it’s violent, which is perfectly acceptable, but that he’d allow the states to decide the law governing abortions. This fails the basic autonomy test and the very notion of liberty that’s in Libertarianism, which he proved in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The biggest impediment to curtailing abortions is the refusal of religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans to accept the primary component to being a person, which is the body that houses the soul, assuming it exists, is something over which no other, certainly no politician, clergy or the state, has control.

This is about personal autonomy and living freely without any dependencies, the first component of personhood. It’s not abortion, but includes it, because religious fundamentalists are using political means to wage a war against the very notion of women’s individual freedom.

If people believing in true liberty don’t start taking religious conservatives on, whatever party they are in, over their fundamentalism, women’s autonomy won’t be sacrosanct one day.

This includes taking on people like Pres. Obama when he decides that a safe pharmaceutical like Plan B can be used as a stick to the contraceptive carrot that came afterward, because women’s individual freedoms remain a bargaining chip for politicians and their supporters.

The ultimate example of this was seen through the Susan G. Komen fiasco this past week, when Komen decided to make ideology more important than the health of women, especially poor women, who have been a political football since the Hyde Amendment. Yes, Pres. Obama used poor women as a football too, and he did it through the religious conservative playbook that created Hyde in the first place.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Rep. Paul Ryan, Sugar, and the Super Bowl

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). – Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say, Yahoo! News


Super Bowl Sunday is big fun at our house.

This past week, CBS did a program on the best Super Bowl commercials that was hilarious. They really are fun to watch during the game. Adriana Lima is an eye-popping beauty, and every time I see that E-Trade baby I laugh out loud.

I haven’t had a favorite football team in years. Since I moved to D.C. I’ve tried to root for the Redskins, but I grew up in St. Louis, where the rivalry of the Cardinals – Redskins made them my mortal sports enemy, as were the Dallas Cowboys. But having once lived in New York for several years and loved it, I can’t help hope the New York Giants pull off a win today.

One month into the New Year, this big food eating extravaganza Sunday is tough for people who are trying to start a new diet regimen. Of course, the words “diet regimen” reveal the problem. If you want to get trim and fit, it’s not about diet as much as it is changing your entire lifestyle. That’s what so many people get wrong; it’s also why it’s so hard.

So, to all you attempting to start a new food habit and find yourself staring at Super Bowl temptations, don’t be too hard on yourself if you can’t resist. Just remember that come Monday morning, it’s back to the business of getting leaner. (You could always go to the gym, take a walk or something physical to keep from over-indulging.)

It got me to thinking about an extraordinary moment last weekend.

Rep. Paul Ryan was a guest on “Fox News Sunday” last Sunday and Chris Wallace. Knowing it was his birthday, Wallace surprised him with a rectangular cake drenched in thick white frosting, with a large green dollar sign in the middle. Surprisingly, Mr. Ryan recoiled from the cake, chuckling, refusing to eat any. I don’t eat sugar, gave it up a long time ago. Wallace, clearly feeling awkward, asked Ryan to at least cut the cake. He did so, but only reluctantly, because after he cut it he didn’t know what to do with the piece he cut. Chris Wallace laughed nervously.

Good for him. I’m with Paul Ryan where sugar is concerned.

Now, if a liberal had been brought a cake by a host of FNC, can you just imagine the wingnut blog hysteria if he or she had refused to down the sugared goo?

Fill in the blank Democrat too good to share birthday cake with Wallace!

Sugar snob on this Sunday!

Elitist spruns sugar treat!

If more people paid closer attention to their own diet and exercise regimen, our health care costs wouldn’t be so astronomical. The majority of people can control their health and weight through diet, exercise and stress management, which begins with how you choose to live your life, with whom and taking responsibility for all these choices, which is a lot more difficult and involved than writing these sentences.

But whenever a study comes out on a major product, like the one I quote from at the top, that has a huge lobbying arm, I start the countdown for a requisite article to appear trying to disprove the facts or finding fault with the research, even dropping a bomb on the institution that released it. None of these things, however, can disprove what I’ve come to know is true through my own life, usage and experience, as well as those I’ve coached on diet and shaping up their lives.

Think of sugar as a drug or pharmaceutical and you’ve got it about right.

That’s how destructive it can be to your body, your mental functions, but especially your moods, though it’s your weight, blood pressure and cholesterol that’s right up there too. It’s the fuel behind our country’s obesity.

Ever heard of the book Sugar Blues? It’s the most important book you haven’t read.

From the study linked at the top:

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just “empty calories,” but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

If you want to do one thing for yourself that you’ll never regret and can be a foundation for building a healthier life, the first thing to do is ban all sugar. There will be exceptions, like on Valentine’s Day or maybe on this Super Bowl Sunday, because it’s a big party day and because you’ll never stick with it if you feel deprived.

But if you absolutely have to have a sugar treat, making it a treat, not something you indulge in every day.

If you’re craving something eat protein instead.

Go Giants!

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Cinematherapy in Feminist Perspective: Daisy Bates

Hello news junkies… Wonk the Vote here with a new feature at TM.com that I hope you enjoy!

Tonight, my recommendation for you is the PBS Independent Lens documentary that aired this week  — Daisy Bates: First Lady of Little Rock.

The Louisville Film Society also screened the film at the Dreamland Film Center earlier last month. From what appears to be the press release of that screening:

“As a black woman who was a feminist before the term was invented, Daisy Bates refused to accept her assigned place in society. ‘Daisy Bates: First Lady of Little Rock’ tells the story of her life and public support of nine black students who registered to attend the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, which culminated in a constitutional crisis — pitting a president against a governor and a community against itself. Unconventional, revolutionary, and egotistical, Daisy Bates reaped the rewards of instant fame, but paid dearly for it.”

Can I just say that I am so glad PBS chose to kick black history month off by spotlighting a *feminist* leader of the civil rights movement? (The late Dorothy Height would have been an excellent choice too!)

Funny how women always pay “dearly” for ego in anything political, but today’s Newts and Romneys and–yes, Obamas, too–all self-inflate with reckless abandon and don’t seem to suffer for it all that much–or have their names disappeared from the history books.

Contra Costa Times, via Kansas City Star:

If you were to compile a quick, off-the-top-of-your-head list of civil rights-era heroes (no Googling allowed), Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and a few others might immediately spring to mind.

But Daisy Bates? Probably not – despite the fact that she played a key role in the Little Rock integration crisis of 1957 and that she, like King, spoke at the landmark March on Washington.

Eurweb.com has a great quote from producer-director Sharon La Cruise:

“I just couldn’t understand, because I studied history and I thought I knew it extensively, especially African American history. I didn’t know why I didn’t know anything about her,” said La Cruise. “So I read her autobiography. I wrote her a letter. I said basically what I’ve just said, to her, that I didn’t understand why I didn’t know about her, and I want to know more about her, and I thought her life would make this incredible film.”

More from La Cruise via her op-ed at Womens E-News:

I became fascinated by the thought of that 8-year-old child who in one day learned she was an orphan and realized that being black meant you lived in a world where your life was insignificant. I wrote Bates and told her how much I admired her and thought her life story should be turned into a documentary film. She responded through her attorney that she would love to explore the idea further.

I was beyond thrilled to hear back, but then realized I had no idea how to produce a full-length documentary. I’d studied at New York University’s School of Journalism but didn’t have a lot of filmmaking experience. So I wasted two years dreaming of producing a documentary, not realizing how ill Bates was. On Nov. 4, 1999, I woke up to hear NPR reading Bates’ obituary. I was devastated.

Five years later though, in 2004, I decided to make the documentary after all. I’d gained experience by then and thought I was ready. But it took me seven long years to complete the film, as I worked on other projects and scraped by on funding. I was the director, producer and bottle-washer in one. I managed to hire some researchers, but did most of it myself. Kind friends helped me out on the script.

Dorothy Height’s memoir is on my current reading list and so her story is fresh on my mind–as is Shirley Sherrod’s encounter with the current Administration. I’m struck by the similarities of all these women’s stories–Daisy Bates’, Shirley Sherrod’s, Dorothy Height’s. They were all spurred to action by simply facing the inequality and injustice that they had faced since childhood, head-on in their adulthood. Their refusal to settle for less than their “inalienable” rights is the quintessential story of the ordinary American hero(ine).

They are each of them Rosa Parks on that bus, just having had enough of being treated inferiorly–but each with a unique story of her own to tell, stories that deserve to be heard.

From the Gray Lady’s review of the doc:

Ms. La Cruise injects first-person musings into the film that sit awkwardly, but she also finds side stories that elevate her movie above mere hagiography. Ms. Bates’s aggressiveness on integration was divisive for the state’s black leaders, and that she was a woman meant she was pushing against more than just racial barriers.

I am reminded here of what Dorothy Heights so eloquently termed the

“triple bind of racism, sexism and poverty.”

SF Weekly echoes the Gray Lady’s take on La Cruise and her Daisy Bates doc:

​In the process, Cruise also uncovers a personality as complex as the era — a charismatic, self-taught firebrand whose need of drink led to three early strokes and whose need of attention often led to alienation, even from those she would help. In some ways this is a tragedy that culminates in a state holiday, but we are left with an authentic heroine who has not been whitewashed.

This is where the political girl-junkie in me says, “Squee!”

PBS has a trailer and a few clips up here, and if you’d like to watch the entire documentary, it will be up for free for your viewing, for the next two weeks.

Also, the Zinn Education Project has a great related lesson plan–Warriors Don’t Cry: Connecting History, Literature, and Our Lives–that you might want to check out, especially you educators amongst the TM.com readership.

 

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

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

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 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

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 }

J.F.K., King and the Archives of a Giant

**UPDATED**

There are nearly a million documents associated with the life of Martin Luther King Jr. These pages will present a more dynamic view than is often seen of Dr. King’s life and times. The documents reveal the scholar, the father, and the pastor. Through these papers we see the United States of America at one of its most vulnerable, most honest and perhaps most human moments in history. There are letters bearing the official marks of royalty and the equally regal compositions of children. You will see speeches, telegrams, scribbled notes, patient admonitions and urgent pleas. This spotlight shows you a glimpse of the remarkable history within this collection. – The King Center – Archives

Oh, the irony, MLK digital archives are brought to the world by J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dr. King‘s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King was destined to pave the way, not just for Barack Obama, but for another Democratic president back in his day, including J.F.K. Pres. Kennedy impacted my life a great deal through my big brother, which I write about in my new book. It’s why I wrote, produced and directed a one woman show “Weeping for J.F.K.” back in 2005. It took the collision of two great men to dismantle the prejudice of America’s political history, even if civil rights remains a scarred wound that doesn’t take much to rip open.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light, with a big push from Bobby, and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over.

Watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963 (audio), JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. had gotten through to Kennedy, revealing something from which J.F.K. had once been distanced, a world away.

John F. Kennedy’s address that June:

Good evening, my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.

I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.

I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.

Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.

The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.

Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

It took constant campaigning from King, but JFK came to understand that action was required. Kennedy became the first president since Truman to trumpet the cause of civil rights. President John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation was met with fierce opposition by the southern delegations of Congress. He was assassinated before it became law.

The legislation LBJ finally signed was Kennedy’s hope for a new America. Had John F. Kennedy lived, his civil rights actions would have been met hard in the south during his 1964 campaign. JFK never lived to fight this fight. The legislation LBJ signed was Kennedy’s final vision, and the words LBJ spoke upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encapsulized the moment for history: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”

King’s eulogy upon JFK’s death proved the respect each man had won from the other and that politicians can change to forge great hopes for those oppressed. He said that John F. Kennedy lived his life to “move forward with more determination to rid our nation of the vestiges of racial segregation and discrimination.”

King made the men of the 1960s come his way, see the overwhelming injustices. Like many great men, history has given evidence that he was wholly human and flawed. His life force was gargantuan. His courage unbounded. His faith guided his life, because he knew his soul would live on and on. His memory has as well.

It’s not many a man who could change the course of John F. Kennedy’s life and his philosophy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had the power to do just that and it changed America forever.



Edited from post first published 1.15.07, re-posted once again on this Dr. King holiday.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Virginia’s A.G. Cuccineli Intervenes in GOP Primary Dispute

Updated below


Political tango, anyone?

Maybe Newt can quit crying now. The last straw embarrassment that revealed his campaign wasn’t all that is about to be fixed.

Rick Perry already filed a law suit, but right now his team is scrambling trying to fix blame on why Perry bombed so badly when trying to run for president.

Big news out of Virginia, which is backed by Republicans and Democrats in the state. Story from Carl Cameron of Fox News:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in the Virginia presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

[...] Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.
Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

UPDATE: Everyone seems to be jumping on Perry’s bandwagon, according to a report from Dave Weigel.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Secretary Clinton: ‘Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights’

The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday. President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality. – U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad

What Pres. Obama has done through this directive is historic. Having Secy. Clinton to deliver the message makes it resound.

To use American foreign aid to combat foreign governments from criminalizing homosexuality is something only a president can do and Barack Obama has done a great and controversial thing, given the focus on foreign aid and our economic state, through his decision.

This speech continues what Hillary began in Beijing, China as first lady in 1995, a speech that is foundational to my book, The Hillary Effect, and which is cited in the Introduction. The Hillary Effect itself, along with Secy. Clinton’s advocacy, helped by time, made possible by Pres. Obama’s courageous act, aided by the advocacy of gays and lesbians fighting for equality, which reached critical mass on DADT, manifested a global moment of pride for our country today.

Contrary to the naysayers, I always contended, in fact I knew, that Barack Obama could have no stronger partner than Hillary Clinton in his Administration. Having studied her for two decades, I had never a doubt. Their partnership here sings out.

It is a great day for which we owe Pres. Obama a great deal, with this speech by Secy. Clinton a historic moment for her as well.

Of course, in an election season, nothing this grand could go without scurrilous words from the right. It’s fitting that it comes from Rick Perry.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. … Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. … This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Ah yes, human rights as “special rights,” the threats of torture and even death for gays not enough to convince Republicans like Rick Perry that this is a human rights issue.

This is the sort of action that inspires people to repeat the axiom that presidential elections be seen as a choice and not a referendum. Only a president can make such a groundbreaking, sweeping decision. It’s a reminder that hits deep for many and will bind some people to Pres. Obama tightly, while also revealing a core tenet of the Democratic Party.

First Lady Hillary Clinton said “human rights are women’s rights.”

Today she spoke for America once again saying, “human rights are gay rights.”

It is a great day.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Grateful

The team on my book, The Hillary Effect, who helped me get it into the wider world is most on my mind this year.

So, I thought I’d share the Acknowledgement page with you all today.

Many people skip over this page, but to any author it’s one of the most important pages, a paragraph of it devoted to many of you, including Joyce, Stacy, Art and the other guest bloggers like WonktheVote, but also Dash of Dan.


Acknowledgements

Every writer should be so blessed as to have a creative tour de force like Judith Proffer in her corner.

Thanks to Hugh Syme who took the cover and made it extraordinary.

…A nod to Spencer Proffer for all he does when someone wants to manifest magic.

I’m grateful to Premier Digital Publishing for knowing the story I was telling could be of interest to a lot of people.

Eric Estrin, my copy editor and fact checker, made a real difference, and I’m grateful to him for it.

Along the way, as I quietly researched and wrote, while continuing my daily political analysis on my site (www.taylormarsh.com), talented bloggers took over on the weekends, giving me some time, unbeknownst to them, to concentrate on excavating this political tale. Now maybe they’ll know how important their contributions have been to me over the two years it took to get this book written and published. As for my readers, I’m forever indebted to them for sticking around in happy times and through rougher ones, but always coming back because they trusted the political analysis I offered. This book is because of them, too.

Lorie Miller, V.P. of Web Services at Agora Net, is the tech guru behind my website who makes it sing. It has been a never-ending retooling enterprise for her, and I’m extremely lucky to have Lorie’s generous patience.

I’ve met a lot of people along my “Hillary Effect” journey and have communicated with even more, from insiders to regular voters — individuals who shared their stories that helped me get the full picture. The outpouring of information and passion that came my way over several years enlightened my efforts and kept me on the trail, reconfirming time and again just how important Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential candidacy was to American politics and women’s history.

As for my beloved sister Susie, who forgave my unintended sins that are too numerous to list, as well as my brother Larry, the only father I’ve ever known, they always supported the hell-bent nature of my artistic soul.

But my mother Marjorie made it all possible. The bravest soul I’ll ever know, she stayed alive through grit and heart, because she was determined to send me into the wider world with the same courage she had and a code that came from an abiding faith in something greater than self.

To my blue-collar husband who bet it all to move us to Washington, D.C. after the 2008 election, there just aren’t enough words. He sacrificed a lot, but never stopped knowing I was onto something, even when things turned bleak and got rough. His unending support was my fuel.

So, somewhere between “Countin’ on a Miracle” (by Bruce Springsteen) and beyond “Cost of Livin’” (by Ronnie Dunn), this book manifested and got into your hands.

It’s finally safe to say I have survived the road less traveled, which isn’t for the faint of heart. Actually, I did a lot better than survive and can happily report the view from here is spectacular.

 “We can never tell what is in store for us.”

                                                                       — Harry S. Truman

Have a joyous Thanksgiving.


Read full story · Comments { 8 }

O No She Dit-ten! Pamela Geller’s Butterball Fatwa

OMG!

Another “strike against freedom”!

“It’s Islamic supremacism on the march”! “Yet again.”

LOLLOLLOLLOL.

I’ve been making fun of Pamela Geller ever since her favorite diplomat, John Bolton, refused an interview, while rhetorically canoodling Ms. Geller. Some of you may remember my superwoman graphic back in 2006, a snarky take off on one Geller had on her site.

Hat tip to Jillian Rayfield of TPM for pointing me to Geller’s hilarious “Happy Halal Thanksgiving” post in American Thinker. An excerpt, minus the torturous analogies to turkey killing:

In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a torturous method: Islamic slaughter.

[...] Others object because of the cruelty to animals that halal slaughter necessitates. Where are the PETA clowns and the ridiculous celebs who pose naked on giant billboards for PETA and “animal rights”? They would rather see people die of cancer or AIDS than see animals used in drug testing, but torturous and painful Islamic slaughter is OK.

Still others refuse to do so on principle: why should we be forced to conform to Islamic norms? It’s Islamic supremacism on the march, yet again.

Non-Muslims in America and Europe don’t deserve to have halal turkey forced upon them in this way, without their knowledge or consent. So this Thanksgiving, fight for your freedom. Find a non-halal, non-Butterball turkey to celebrate Thanksgiving this Thursday. [...]

It continues from there, with Geller’s Butterball fatwa a classic, even for her.

Fight for your freedom! Roast a duck.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Fallon & The Roots Greet Bachmann with ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’

**UPDATED**


If this had happened to Hillary there would have been a very loud explosion and rightfully so.

But last night, the band went amazingly all in. Questlove himself tweeted some words of warning: “aight late night walk-on song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title.” The guest in question? GOP presidential gadfly Michele Bachmann. The song? Fishbone’s “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” Yup! That happened. – The Roots Did Not Pick the Nicest Walk-On Song for Michele Bachmann

My question is what in the hell is Michele Bachmann doing on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon”?

Dumbest campaign decision ever.

UPDATE: From Jimmy Fallon on Twitter (h/t Sasha, from the comments):

I’m honored that @michelebachmann was on our show yesterday and I’m so sorry about the intro mess. I really hope she comes back.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Herman Cain Ducks New Hampshire Interview

“We need a leader, not a reader,” Cain told hundreds of cheering supporters inside a Nashua hotel ballroom. Some had traveled from nearby states to see him. – AP


What a colossal embarrassment Herman Cain has become. After serial allegations of sexual harassment, he also proved that thinking and answering questions about foreign policy, even recent events, is just too much for him. That goes double if an interview is videotaped.

So, if you had any doubts that his “campaign” was one big charade, give them up. Herman Cain has ditched the New Hampshire Union Leader interview. That’s not just big, it’s huge.

From Michael Calderone:

If Herman Cain stumbles on a foreign policy question during Thursday’s scheduled meeting with the influential New Hampshire Union Leader — as he did earlier this week when asked about President Obama’s handling of Libya — don’t expect to see the clip on an endless cable news loop.

That’s because Cain’s campaign has requested that the sit-down not be videotaped. And now, a scheduling matter puts the entire 10 a.m. interview in jeopardy.

Union Leader publisher Joe McQuaid told The Huffington Post that “no reason was given” for the no-camera request and he “was a bit surprised” by it. So far, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have all met with the Union Leader and allowed C-SPAN to tape the newspaper interviews for broadcast.

No reason needs to be given. Just watch Cain’s interview on Libya or better yet, Jon Stewart’s take down of Mr. Cain.

As for the video at the top, it’s via Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo and TPM’s Benjy Sarlin and ABC’s Susan Archer, all of whom picked up on a classic Herman Cain quote that is straight out of “The Simpsons,” which is shown above.

At this point Herman Cain is trying to get out of his fake presidential candidacy with his book tour and speaking hopes intact.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Latest Female Accuser of Cain: ‘He also pushed my head toward his crotch.’

**UPDATED**

Bialek described an incident in July 1997 where she and Cain were in a car and her offered to show her the trade group’s headquarters. “Instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and … put his hand on my leg, under my skirt toward my genitals,” Bialek said. “He also pushed my head toward his crotch,” she said. – Woman: Herman Cain put hand up my skirt


I got nothing to add.

Oh, except that the right wing is eating up Ms. Allred’s arrival.

UPDATE 2: From the New York Times:

In an interview after Ms. Bialek’s news conference, Joel P. Bennett, a lawyer for one of Mr. Cain’s anonymous accusers, said that Ms. Bialek’s claims were “very similar” in nature to the incident that occurred between his client and Mr. Cain.

His client has not said whether Mr. Cain touched her physically. In a statement Friday on her behalf, Mr. Bennett alleged that Mr. Cain had engaged in a “series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances” toward his client.

“It corroborates the claim,” Mr. Bennett said of Ms. Bialek’s allegation. Asked whether that meant that Mr. Cain had physically touched his client inappropriately, Mr. Bennett said “I can’t get more specific” but added that “I can say it is corroborating.”

UPDATE: Ms. Bialek has reportedly booked two morning shows.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Sunday Night

As Bill Maher might say, I kid the rich. It’s not that, really. It’s the inequity.

This post has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Pres. Obama’s Charm Offensive with Jay Leno

“I’m going to wait until everybody’s voted off the island. Once they narrow it down to one or two, I’ll start paying attention.” – Pres. Obama with Jay Leno

Several times recently on “Morning Joe,” the conversation has veered into why, as Joe Scarborough and others see it, the primary process weens out the best candidates, people like Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and others. Lamenting the current Republican field, the conversation has often revolved around the amateur hour we’re all seeing unfold, however, they’re missing the obvious reason many of the best Republicans aren’t running in 2012.

If you saw Pres. Obama with Jay Leno last night you know the reason. There is not a single Republican in his political class running. The top tier candidates don’t want to go up against Barack Obama, because they don’t think they can beat him.

Mitt Romney comes the closest, but his dancing on the Ohio collective bargaining situation reveals his inner political weasel, which is never going to win over the Tea Party crowd. However, if you’ve heard him make his economic case on right wing radio, including on China, you’d see clearly that Mr. Romney has game on an issue that could be devastating to Pres. Obama.

It’s why cable yackers like Ed Schultz are so merciless in their criticisms of Romney. Democrats and progressives want to winnow him out, much preferring to run against Perry or Cain, neither of whom can win a general election.

In a lighter moment of the conversation, Jay Leno chided Pres. Obama for going to a famous chicken and waffle place in Los Angeles. Leno asked the President if his wife gives him trouble when she sees him eating this type of food, with Obama talking about chicken wings at one point. That’s when he said his wife also enjoys french fries and pizza, just not every day, with moderation the key. With this dishy story circulating it’s no wonder.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

About the Book Cover

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Marco Rubio’s Trouble with Truth Explodes

During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the “son of exiles,” he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power. But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than two-and-a-halfyears before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959. – Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show

Anyone in the public arena knows how this works.

Marco Rubio had a choice a long time ago and he made it. He decided some elements were worth ignoring for a dramatic header that made him look more heroic and his struggles decidedly majestic.

The “son of exiles” was chosen for obvious reasons. Anyone saying otherwise, which his office is, doesn’t understand they’ve given the story, not only legs, but a jet engine. It’s politically stupid, but unsurprising.

Has the man who wanted to play senator been caught telling a whopper to get the opportunity, a bald-faced lie, or simply been seduced by consultants who said nobody will care and we’ll deal with it later?

Rubio’s office sent out this very angry response, which the Miami Herald first posted:

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding false allegations that he embellished his family’s history:

“To suggest my family’s story is embellished for political gain is outrageous. The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parents’ recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened. I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently.

“What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate. My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times. In 1961, my mother and older siblings did in fact return to Cuba while my father stayed behind wrapping up the family’s matters in the U.S. After just a few weeks living there, she fully realized the true nature of the direction Castro was taking Cuba and returned to the United States one month later, never to return.

“They were exiled from the home country they tried to return to because they did not want to live under communism. That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous.”

What defensive, posturing rubbish.

When it comes to piecing together family history, as I have labored to do over decades, it’s not an easy task to get everything to fit, especially if there are gaps in generations. But honest people don’t opt for the most laudatory when it’s not the case.

However, the Miami Herald has taken issue with the Washington Post’s piece:

Rubio’s inability to remember these specific dates isn’t much of a surprise. Rubio is sometimes sloppy. When he was in the Florida House, he failed to disclose a loan at one point and fill out his financial disclosures properly. He rung up a host of personal and questionable expenses on a Republican Party of Florida credit card and couldn’t show how they furthered party business. Indeed, the Washington Post story notes that “details have changed in his accounts” of his grandmother’s death — whether it happened when his father was 6 or 9. That’s not embellishment. That’s evidence of sloppiness. – Did the Washington Post embellish Marco Rubio’s ‘embellishments’?

Maybe the Miami Herald is correct. Marco Rubio is simply continuing the pattern he’s always had, which is that the senator from Florida has trouble with the truth.

Marco’s ego made him do it. Unless he slays it and comes clean, he’s just another slick politician who can’t be trusted with a thing that comes out of his mouth. I’m shocked.

However, none of this may matter to voters, including Latinos, who are likely a lot more incensed by Mr. Rubio’s right-wing ideology that craps on the Dream Act, than whether he’s actually a “son of exiles,” something that doesn’t impact their lives today.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

#OWS

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Lady Gaga Serenades Bill Clinton

Gaga — who also crooned a Marilyn Monroe-esque version of “Happy Birthday” to the former president, who celebrated his 65th in August — suggested that the audience should get “caught up in a little Bill romance.” She then launched into her 2009 hit as she slipped off a skirt that covered the lower half of her nude-colored bodysuit, wiggling her booty as she did so. As the video below reveals, Bill and Hillary Clinton both had a good laugh … – Lady Gaga serenades Bill Clinton with ‘Bad Romance’

I’m a huge Lady Gaga fan. Only she could take a page from Marilyn Monroe and not only add to it, but obliterate it.

This should wake you up and get your week started.


More from the concert is below. (Gaga at around 22 minutes then serenades Hillary, too.)

Read full story · Comments { 3 }