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 | economy

Did Clint Eastwood Know He Was Making a Case for Pres. Obama?

By on 06 February 2012

**UPDATED**

[update]“I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain. I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK. I am not supporting any politician at this time. Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad. Anything they gave me for it went for charity. If any Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.” – Clint Eastwood to Bill O’Reilly’s producer

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The Super Bowl ad above has caused quite a ruckus. As you’ll see in the update at the top [update]. Rove responded earlier.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.” – Karl Rove quoted in the Washington Post

Mr. Eastwood is in direct conflict with what he said last year.

“We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.” – Clint Eastwood

Bailing out the U.S. car industry is one of the most exceptionally American things Pres. Obama has done.

I’ve read Lawrence Summers 57-page economic memo and any person or politician positing that the Obama administration isn’t partially responsible for the trajectory of our economy, which is headed in positive direction, simply cannot be trusted.

What I find inexcusable is what might have happened if Pres. Obama had opened up Medicare as his first stop in solving health care, especially at a moment in time where he had the people ready to back him. A stimulus of the size Robert Reich suggested is another failing. However, at least Pres. Obama didn’t check the austerity box with Bowles-Simpson.

In the Super Bowl ad above, Clint Eastwood, when faced with a script that hails the saving of a quintessentially American industry and manufacturing base, does what any American with common sense would feel compelled to do. Praise the efforts and say we need more of it.

It used to be something on which we could all agree. Objective facts of success leading to someone to seeing a template for paving the way ahead.

Writers like Charles Kupchin are starting to weigh in that China’s GDP will pass the U.S. in around ten years. The World Bank has predicted that the dollar, the renminbi, China’s currency, and the euro will become part of a new “multi-currency” in less than 3 decades.

So far, Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich or any other Republican have come close to explaining their plans for stopping what many see as inevitable, given our current trajectory We’re left with platitudes and fearmongering from Republicans who are asking Americans to vote for them to lead us.

It will be frightening if people actually start believing the current crop of Republicans has one clue what to do, besides inflict austerity on a fragile recovering that is going in the right direction. When you look at Mitt Romney’s answers to our economic woes there is absolutely no sense he understands how austerity will impact the poor, many of whom are women and children.

If Republicans are going to take the government out of the building future of the United States, I would suggest that what Kupchin and others are saying will happen in ten or twenty years will be on our doorstep a lot earlier.

I say this as someone who no longer trusts Pres. Obama or believes he has the ideological compass or passion to do what’s required. However, that doesn’t mean Republicans do. That our politics is dumbed down to this either or choice is partially why writers are giving the U.S. such dire future prospects, because Republicans and Democrats clearly aren’t up to the challenges.

That Clint Eastwood didn’t even get what he was saying or representing in the Super Bowl ad above should give people pause.

Karl Rove clearly got the message and it freaked him out.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Rep. Paul Ryan, Sugar, and the Super Bowl

By on 05 February 2012

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 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

The pace of job creation surged in January, with the US economy generating 243,000 new positions while the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, according to government data released Friday. – CNBC

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



This is fantastic news. Besides the people impacted by the turn in the economy, Obama reelect gets a boost too.

“What’s not to like about the report?” said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak in New York. “Not only did payrolls exceed forecasts…but between the November and December revisions employers added 160,000 more jobs than first thought.” – CNBC

I’d like to just offer one note of caution as 2012 election season starts to be seen only through the jobs and unemployment numbers. This is understandable, but as we learned on the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, when Osama bin Laden popped up in a video, what is suspected to be the issue, Bush-Cheney’s screw-up on Iraq, didn’t turn out to do him in. Obama gave the order for a daring SEAL Team Six mission to take out Osama, for which he doesn’t get enough credit, but there other foreign policy areas where he is less surefooted.

There is growing chatter about developments surrounding Iran and Israel. Richard Haas talked about it this week on “Morning Joe,” stressing a new element, the “zone of immunity.” David Ignasius wrote about it yesterday:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

In his State of the Union Speech, Pres. Obama trotted out the old and tired war rattling words “no option off the table” to make the point about Iran. I mentioned earlier when talking about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson (see Wayne Barrett here and here), who’s whole reason for being is to saber rattle on Iran, that DNI Clapper had warned about Iranian attacks inside the U.S.

There’s an interesting post up at Huffington Post on the entire subject of Obama and Iran.

Mitt Romney is so incredibly weak on national security issues that there can be little doubt he’d have to trip the full neoconservative wire to pass muster with Republicans.

Pres. Obama has shown his Bushesque colors throughout his foreign policy decisions, with an election year bringing even bigger challenges to him. As many of you remember, he ducked an important vote on Iran as a senator running for president. There has been much criticism on his Israeli policy as president, most undeserved. Pres. Obama has been a steadfast friend to Israel, as all American presidents must be, with Romney’s “appeasement” lines absurd.

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own. – Juan Cole

It’s a long way until November. However, never underestimate election year foreign policy problems to distract people who remain unhappy about the direction of the country. If Iran and Israel become front and center the Middle East could raise its head and turn the election into something no one anticipates today.

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By on 02 February 2012

This article was first published for U.S. News & World Report, under the title “Time for a Tea Party of the Left”.

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base, which has absolutely no resemblance to the Tea Party, who began challenging the Republican establishment back during George W. Bush’s term. The efforts finally ended up making history in 2010, with state legislatures across the country went Republican. It started an assault on the middle class, unions, as well as a war on women’s freedoms that ended up turning Wisconsin and Ohio upside down, but boy did it change the debate.

Now Newt Gingrich, once a speaker of the House, is running on an anti-establishment, anti-Washington platform spouting Tea Party populism as the new change message. In South Carolina, Newt sang the Tea Party’s tune and the right wing base rewarded him with a win, leaving the establishment mouths agape.

Where’s the Democratic version of the Tea Party? You’d think after Obama’s anti-progressive economics, foreign policy, and adoption of Bush antiterrorism policies (though to a more methodically lethal, anti-progressive effect), the Democratic base would have taken the Tea Party template and run with it by now.

Obama got away with the healthcare plan, which was bargained behind closed doors with private insurance and drug companies, manifesting a product that hasn’t kept costs down. He negotiated with himself, as he did on the stimulus, instead of using the majority he had in Congress to press the case for a public option that would have tackled healthcare costs, our biggest foe. It was never considered.

When Obama recently decided not to relax restrictions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave him a pass, while the Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, a member of the so called “Pro-Choice Caucus,” stated she was “disappointed.” There are never any repercussions for such decisions on the left, while repercussions have defined the Tea Party and its power on the right.

Understand that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion. It simply makes a female’s womb inhospitable for implantation and has been found absolutely safe by the F.D.A. However, as an ode to independents in an election season, Obama made a decision that any Republican would have made.

But not to worry, a carrot wasn’t far behind. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employer healthcare plan, with religious-affiliated hospitals and institutions getting a one-year delay to comply. It could have been done earlier, but an election year is prime time.

During the debate around Bowles-Simpson, entitlement “reform” was broached first by Obama, with cost-of-living increases on Social Security being considered by the White House. That this would hit women hardest and put them in poverty was evidently missed by the administration. It was scuttled when all hell broke loose.

There wasn’t a woman in the room during the debt ceiling debate, a time when entitlement “reforms” were being considered. Pelosi was only added after women’s groups held a conference call and writers started complaining.

Obama also cut home heating assistance for the poor at a time when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

During Obama’s first term, he’s sucked on the straw of cutting the deficit, while ignoring Democratic economics. The bully pulpit for progressive economics wasn’t used until re-election season, when he took to the stage at Osawatamie, Kan., channeling the Occupy Wall Street message while launching his 2012 campaign.

There’s the latest action on the Keystone XL Pipeline, at least a short-term win, but it’s not like he came out with gusto against it. Obama said no for now then blamed the Republicans for not giving him enough time to consider the environmental impact. Activists from the grass roots to Robert Redford applauded. We don’t even know if it’s a definite decision.

The Democratic base has a passive-aggressive relationship with Obama that resembles a dysfunctional love affair. He has all the power and the base has absolutely none, unless you count the gay and lesbian contingent which was as good a model as the Tea Party on how to get it done. It’s not that progressives couldn’t have power; it’s that they refuse to wield any.

So they cannot pressure Obama at election time because he knows his Democratic base will be there. After all, they’re not the Tea Party. It doesn’t matter if they’re unhappy, all that matters is he’s got their vote and he knows it.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

The Monster Facebook IPO Filing

By on 01 February 2012

Facebook earned $1 billion in profits in 2011, a 65 percent increase from the previous year. It hopes to raise at least five times that with its stock offering. Eighty-five percent of its revenue last year came from advertising. Most of the rest came from the share that Facebook takes when online gamers, mostly players of Zynga games, spend on the platform. – PC World


The SEC Facebook filing.

Zuckerberg talking about Facebook:

Zuckerberg said Faceboook has five core values: focus on impact, move fast, be bold, be open and build social value. – Bloomberg

The New York Times gathers some of the filing highlights.

Wired asks Google or Groupon?

The Facebook IPO outdistances Google’s IPO, becoming the largest of all the Internet companies, to no one’s surprise, I’m sure.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Mitt’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Moment

By on 31 January 2012



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The $825,400 Man

By on 31 January 2012

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be

By on 28 January 2012



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

By on 28 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

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

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

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

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

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

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

Governor Mike Huckabee:

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

Voice-over:

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

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

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

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

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

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

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed

By on 25 January 2012

Closeup photo of Taylor Marsh

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US News

It’s written by yours truly.

They chose the title.

Here’s a teaser, but it’s an exclusive for US News, so you’ll have to click the link above to get the rest. (I hope you do.)

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base…

On a side note, it’s interesting to find myself with an op-ed in a property owned by Mort Zuckerman. They gave me free rein and it’s the exact piece I wanted to write, so I’ve got no complaints.

Share it, tweet it, just check it out. I’d like them to know people are reading it!

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Nobody is Buying Obama’s Financial Fraud Unit

By on 25 January 2012

After watching parts of the “analysis” of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on Pres. Obama’s State of the Union Speech, the access parade on MSNBC obviously saw something I didn’t. I turned to CNN. Realizing that emotions work with audiences of these events, with approval of Obama’s speech sky high, it’s hard for the average person to understand that underneath the campaign rhetoric lies something else entirely. That goes double for the mortgage investigation unit he announced.

David Dayen explains the problems with smoke and mirrors substituting for what is really required to get a handle on the foreclosure crisis.

As one observer close to an AG told me last night, “I don’t know how Eric Schneiderman gets a wave and a wink from the President of the United States in the State of the Union address without standing behind the Administration’s agreement.” Indeed. That upsets the entire balance of power with respect to the settlement. If Schneiderman joins, it undermines the group of “Justice Democrat” AGs who were working on how to deal with investigations in the absence of a settlement. AG offices are freaking out about this, and it will be tough to keep them from acquiescing now. After all, they have a fig leaf of this new new investigation.

More important, this announcement has collapsed the unified wall of objection on the left to a settlement. And I mean COLLAPSED. Just a day ago, activists were getting in the face of their AGs, warning them of the dangers of a weak settlement that provides little in the way of relief to homeowners. Now I have dozens of press releases in my inbox from liberal groups offering huzzahs to the President for this wonderful investigatory panel.

[...] This is a classic Obama move, putting a threat or a rival inside the tent. It happened with Elizabeth Warren and David Petraeus and Jon Huntsman, and it’s happening again. It divides the coalition against a weak settlement, which will at the least shut down state and federal prosecutions on foreclosure fraud and servicing issues. It puts hopes in yet another investigation, one with little chance for success.

Introducing Abigail Field who is equally unimpressed.

President Obama, if you want to do good policy, you have to kick off Breuer, Khuzami and West. They must be recused; fully walled off. Schneiderman must run the show, not Co-Chair it. Unless his Co-Chairs are SIGTARP Neil Barofsky and US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Whether on his own or backed by true law enforcement allies, Schneiderman must have full subpoena power backed up by the resources to fully investigate and prosecute. And indictments must be immediate.

Yves Smith goes ballistic:

So get this: this is a committee that will “investigate.” The co-chair, Lanny Breuer, along with DoJ chief Eric Holder, hail from white shoe Washington law firm Covington & Burling, which has deep ties to the financial services industry. Even if they did not work directly for clients in the mortgage business, they come from a firm known for its deep political and regulatory connections (for instance: Gene Ludwig, the Covington partner I engaged for some complicated regulatory work when I was at Sumitomo Bank, later became head of the OCC). We’ve written at length on how the OCC is such a shameless tout for the banking industry that it cannot properly be called a regulator. Similarly, the SEC has been virtually absent from the mortgage beat, no doubt because its enforcement chief, Robert Khuzami, was general counsel to the fixed income department at Deutsche Bank. That area included the trading operation under Greg Lippmann who we have described as Patient Zero of so called mezz CDOs, or to the layperson, toxic mortgage paper that kept the subprime bubble going well beyond its sell date. And we don’t need to say much about the DoJ. It has been missing in action during this entire Administration.

In all things, the health care debate should be used as a model. Are you seeing the problem more clearly now?

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

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 }

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 }

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 }

The tone deaf Cayman cash man gets cornered

By on 19 January 2012

Newt Gingrich led Mitt Romney 34-28 in PPP’s South Carolina polling last night, the first of what will be three nights of tracking. Ron Paul at 15%, Rick Santorum at 14%, Rick Perry at 5%, and Buddy Roemer at 3% round out the field. – Public Policy Polling



Why Cayman cash Mitt didn’t have a prepared answer for the tax return question is puzzling. He’s been programmed within an inch of his life since the start. From Forbes to Christian Science Monitor, few think it will matter. From Forbes:

The fact is that Romney is doing exactly the same thing that you and I do: he’s taking advantage of existing Tax Code. You wouldn’t expect him to volunteer to pay at a higher rate “just because” anymore than you would volunteer to give up your own mortgage interest deduction or offer to drop a personal exemption. There is absolutely nothing in the Tax Code that requires you to legally pay more taxes than you have to.

Romney’s tax return issue is in view, because even if he releases his 2011 returns, who doesn’t think they won’t be stacked for the election season? His dad released his financial information for several years, so that’s Mitt’s model.

It’s never the facts surrounding the candidate that takes him or her out, it’s the emotions the voter feels toward the candidate that do him in. It wasn’t the quote about firing people that did it by itself, it’s that it represented how people already feel about Mitt Romney.

“I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” – Mitt Romney

It’s the nervous laugh that came afterward, reminiscent of the Bret Baier interview, that sounds so sour, because $374,327 is anything but “not very much.”

Then comes the story I’ve been waiting to break, and it’s not that he tithes millions including stock options to the Mormon Church. It’s Mitt Romney stashing millions in the Cayman Islands. From ABC News:

But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Nothing Mitt Romney is doing is illegal and according to Brian Beutler and others, the Romney camp is also saying that his Cayman cash is taxed as if the funds were in the U.S., so anyone implying they’re tax havens are wrong. Then why the secrecy?

But even that misses the issue. In an Occupy era, perception colors reality more harshly, with the GOP’s Cayman cash man representing all that ails our economic system.

Seen in an atmosphere that has Perry endorsing Newt Gingrich, while Santorum squeaks out a win in Iowa, though he just doesn’t have what it takes to capitalize, you also have Sarah Palin giving a nod to Gingrich, too. If the air around Cayman cash Mitt starts to erode his electability argument, always the weakest case for any candidate, the establishment will start to get very nervous, though they should be already. Because though Mitt Romney is an uninspiring candidate, Newt Gingrich will get creamed in the general, because women won’t vote for him. I’m not even sure they will in South Carolina and I felt this way long before the Marianne Gingrich bombshell due to explode tonight on Nightline

We’re about to see what Mitt Romney’s made of and just how good his election machine is, as well as whether the establishment rallies around him. With the southern state nomination swing season upon us, Romney will be in for it if the new polling and Gingrich surge is real, but watch out if he wins on Saturday.

There is passion tied to Newt, but not Romney, which is why Mitt’s machine tried to take him out in Iowa. But the viper you only wound can kill you, even if you live to tell about it.

But no matter the bad week Romney’s having, the one who really needs South Carolina is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

TM.com will go dark to protest SOPA & PIPA

By on 18 January 2012

Controversial anti-piracy legislation, already on life support in the House, is now in serious doubt in the Senate, where the confluence of a Republican rump rebellion, White House concerns and a Wednesday blackout by Wikipedia, Mozilla and other big-name websites is enough to give some senators second thoughts.
Republican Sen. Scott Brown, locked in a reelection fight with Elizabeth Warren in Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he’d vote against the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act. – Politico

Wikipedia goes black.

This isn’t a left right thing.

Yesterday afternoon at a live streaming briefing on the issue you had Adam Green of Bold Progressives standing up to applaud Rep. Darrel Issa for his leadership on this issue, which I watched unfold.

So, TM.com will join the strike this morning, because you can’t mount an offense once the game’s been changed and you don’t know the rules.

Giving lobbyists a win to alter the Internet and not only change its openness, but give total control to outside hostile forces, is something all of us who depend on this platform must take seriously.

TM.com is a small, sole proprietor new media site and the work I do depends on an open Internet. So joining the strike later this a.m. is done in the spirit of solidarity for the new media industry of which I’ve been a part going back to the mid ’90s, longer than most. I’ve been fortunate to have an impact in my corner of the world because of it, proving myself as an opinion leader over the years.

It’s my obligation as the founder of a new media site, which has been around for over 15 years in one form or another, to support the strike that is being led by Reddit, Wikipedia (the English version), Firefox and others like Raw Story.

Here’s a list of some of the people who took part in the streaming online event yesterday:

  • Alexis Ohanian, reddit co-founder (via video)
  • Craig Newmark, craigslist founder (via video)
  • Rebecca MacKinnon, Global Voices co-founder
  • Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder
  • Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute fellow
  • Brad Burnham, Managing Partner at Union Square Ventures
  • Dmitry Shapiro, Veoh founder (via video)
  • Jayme White, Staff Director, Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade

However, today’s a day for action for everyone.

I hope you come back during the day to sign the petition and let Congress know SOPA and PIPA aren’t the answer. An alternative bill is being suggested. It’s called the OPEN Act.

Google blacks out logo... Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web.




This post has been updated; image via Twitter.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }