Page 2 | George W. Bush | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | George W. Bush

The Radically Religious Politics of Rick Santorum

By Taylor Marsh on 26 February 2012

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

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

From today on “This Week”:

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII
[...] By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastic al, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A father’s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of a court into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error(1) seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse. by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of
—(1) Furneaux passim.—
Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the, present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged . Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error, however, at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Secy. Clinton’s Strength at State Seen in Obama Budget

By Taylor Marsh on 14 February 2012

Secretary Clinton is welcomed to Munich conference by host Wolfgang Ischinger. State Dept Image (Feb 04, 2012)

Provides $51.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an increase of 1.6 percent, or $0.8 billion over the 2012 enacted level when including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) resources. Within tightly capped budget constraints, the Budget makes investments in key priorities including the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus continues funding for critical initiatives such as global health, climate change and food security. – Budget: DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

It’s the Hillary Effect.

An event that occurs or when something important is impacted because of Hillary Clinton’s presence, her power and strength of persuasion that is built entirely upon purpose.

It’s why she’s been so effective, even when I’ve disagreed with her, like on Libya. This chasm doesn’t change that her cunning helped get people, the Arab League for instance, to listen, then act.

It’s another example of what I write about in The Hillary Effect.

However, looking at Syria through the lens of Libya, let’s be perfectly clear what the Obama administration is saying through policy.

“Ultimately, it’s going to be important to convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria,” Clinton said. “No one wants to see a civil war in Syria. So we have to encourage the Assad regime, and those who support it, to understand that there’s either a path toward peacemaking and democratic transition – which is what we are promoting – or there’s a path that leads toward chaos and violence, which we deplore.” – Clinton: We need Assad’s consent to put troops in Syria, by Josh Rogin

Humanitarian intervention through military might will be utilized, but only when it’s fully convenient; access to water helps. Because if any situation required humanitarian action and intervention by the world it is in Syria, where innocents are being slaughtered and have been for weeks. In Libya there was only a threat of massacre, whereas in Syria it’s playing out now.

However, as Rogin reports, the Obama administration is “looking for a political solution in Syria and won’t consider putting international troops there unless the Syrian regime agrees.” Because of the proximity of Syria to Israel and its primacy in the region, as well as being land-locked, which is no small issue, there is little the U.S. can do without risking very serious consequences, something that wasn’t a threat with Libya.

In Pres. Obama’s new budget, where the State Dept. received a slight increase over last year’s budget, you can see the prowess soft power has gained since Bush-Cheney. You can peruse for yourself, the entire State Dept. budget available on pdf.

I was thinking of Ryan Lizza’s article “The Obama Memos” when the news of Clinton’s budget victory the State Department was reported:

One Cabinet official made it clear that she did not share the President’s growing commitment to coupon-clipping: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She rejected the White House’s budget for her department, and wrote the President a six-page letter detailing her complaints. Some in the White House saw the long letter as a weapon, something that could be leaked if Clinton didn’t get her way. “At the proposed funding levels,” Clinton wrote, “we will not have the capacity to deliver either the full level of civilian staffing or the foreign assistance programs that underlie the civilian-military strategy you outlined for Afghanistan; nor the transition from U.S. Military to civilian programming in Iraq; nor the expanded assistance that is central to our Pakistan strategy.” She went on, “I want to emphasize that I fully understand the economic realities within which this budget is being constructed, and I share your commitment to fiscal responsibility. But I am deeply concerned about these funding levels.”
The letter contained indications of a real relationship between the former rivals. “You and I often speak about the need to restore the capacity of civilian agencies,” Clinton noted. But the general tone was stern and businesslike. It ended with an urgent plea for Obama to intervene on her behalf. “There is little room for progress unless you provide guidance that you are open to an increase in overall funding levels,” she wrote. Obama did indeed fight for some additional money for Clinton.

Mark Leon Goldberg had the same idea when he wrote his piece for UN Dispatches.

As I noted at the time of Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, we are seeing the final moves of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s stated that if Pres. Obama is reelected she will not serve a second term and I doubt anything will change her mind.

From Goldberg’s UN Dispatch’s piece on the budget, first section in bold below is from his original post, the second is added:

This will be the last foreign affairs budget request in which Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. At a time when other agencies are seeing their budgets slashed or flat-lined, the State Department managed to receive a slight increase over last year’s funding levels. I can’t help but think that having a politically powerful Secretary of State had something to do with this.

Without a strong secretary of state fighting for diplomatic and soft power priorities, the cuts seen at other agencies would likely be delivered to the State Dept.

I’ve been thinking for some time whether Pres. Obama will pick Sen. John Kerry next; though I must say that Kerry coming out against Obama’s contraception mandate is not a small thing.

There can also be no doubt that Pres. Obama listened to Secy. Clinton’s case for the increase, proving this relationship has indeed been all that I wrote it would be.

State is also drawing down its personnel in Baghdad. Pres. George W. Bush’s boondoggle embassy in Iraq, a titanic monstrosity, is scheduled for massive cuts, which is very good news for everyone, especially the Iraqis.

The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.
The swift realization among some top officials that the diplomatic buildup may have been ill advised represents a remarkable pivot for the State Department, in that officials spent more than a year planning the expansion and that many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived.
Michael W. McClellan, the embassy spokesman, said in a statement, “Over the last year and continuing this year the Department of State and the Embassy in Baghdad have been considering ways to appropriately reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Iraq, primarily by decreasing the number of contractors needed to support the embassy’s operations.”

Everyone remembers what the Cheney-Rumsfeld alliance did to the State Dept.

Secy. Clinton came in to a greatly diminished and in some cases, gravely demoralized foreign service team. What she’s done in Obama’s first term has injected new purpose, meaning and power into State, with the power she wields through the Hillary Effect giving her a seat at the boys’ table.

The Pentagon has won more battles, because the defense industry remains one of the toughest and most formidable lobbying arms in America, with the challenges in the world going well beyond State’s reach.

Issues, however, remain. They begin with Pres. Obama’s foreign policy itself and the eye-in-the-sky predator drone strike priority of his Administration, as well as the choice of surgical assassinations. It has rendered Obama counterterrorism policies a cold, bloodless, and lawless venture for Americans who simply look on from afar; the collateral damage we wreak void of glaring light or witness, except for the elite forces that sweep in and out unseen.

Progressives are looking the other way, with a Washington Post/ABC-News poll just last week showing Democrats approve of Pres. Obama’s tactics. Put the name Pres. Romney behind these same policies and I can hear the caterwauling echo. Both Glenn Greenwald and Greg Sargent made a similar point when the polling was first released.

The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed. – Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies

It’s why you have stories like what’s in the LA Times today:

Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones

The military says the nearly 7,500 robotic aircraft it has accrued for use overseas need to come home at some point. But the FAA doesn’t allow drones in U.S. airspace without a special certificate.

It means when hell comes knocking at the hands of people who have scores to settle, nobody will have clean hands.

Secy. Clinton getting a small increase in State’s budget won’t come close to challenging what’s become a foreign policy that adopts a water’s edge philosophy in the worst of what that means. It melds Bush-Cheney with the Obama-Biden era, with the lack of morality and conscience best represented in Libya and Syria.

Being moral and just, committed to upholding U.S. and international laws in the face of great challenges including political pressure, but only when it’s convenient, isn’t something to commend or support.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By Taylor Marsh 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 Taylor Marsh 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 }

U.S. News & World Report: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh

By Taylor Marsh on 25 January 2012

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 }

Financial Shenanigans Amid Gingrich-Romney War

By Taylor Marsh on 23 January 2012

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

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

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

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

The nation’s top six banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs — paid out $144 billion in bonuses and compensation for 2011, second only to the record $147 billion they paid out in 2007 at the height of the economic boom, according to a report released today by The New Bottom Line. Four banks – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – were awarded record high bonuses and compensation in 2011, despite their bleak stock performance during the year.
“Even though top bank executives have claimed that bonuses are down as much as 30 percent for 2011, total compensation has not decreased at all,” according to The New Bottom Line’s report, “Pulling Back The Curtain: The 1% Behind The 2011 Big Bank Bonuses.”
Many banks made up for smaller bonuses by increasing base salaries. For example, base salaries for named executive officers at Goldman Sachs more than tripled in 2011. At JPMorgan Chase, named executive officers saw salaries go up 50 percent.

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

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

The president seems to labor under the misapprehension that crimes by members of the elite must be swept under the rug because prosecuting them would destablize the system. What he misses is that we are well past the point where coverups will work, and they may even blow up before the November elections. If nothing else, his settlement pact has a non-trivial Constitutional problem which the Republicans, if they are smart, will use to undermine the deal and discredit the Administration.
To add insult to injury, Obama is apparently going to present his belated Christmas present to the banking industry as a boon to ordinary citizens. He refused to appoint a real middle class advocate, Elizabeth Warren, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but he’s not above stealing her talking points.
[...] The story did not outline terms, but previous leaks have indicated that the bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the ones to be restructured. Why is this a bad idea? The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lienholders take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administration’s instigation.

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

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Israel’s ‘False Flag’ Op, Posing as C.I.A.

By Taylor Marsh on 14 January 2012

President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the Oval Office, Jan. 12, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The most interesting article you’ll read today is my must read for Saturday.

It comes from Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry:

Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives — what is commonly referred to as a “false flag” operation.
The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah — a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according to the U.S. government and published reports, is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.
But while the memos show that the United States had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah, according to both intelligence officers, the same was not true for Israel’s Mossad.

As a follow up, read Daniel Drezner.

Juan Cole is always an important read on these subjects.

I wonder if Bret Baier will ask the Republican candidates on Monday what they think about these allegations? Ron Paul’s answer would be illuminating, no doubt.

With Mitt Romney being endorsed by John Bolton, it’s not hard to surmise where he’d come down. The question is what is he prepared to do about it? Like Pres. Obama, that answer is an easy guess.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

The Cutter Memo on Mitt and Bain

By Taylor Marsh on 13 January 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney is Satan.

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

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Barack Obama, the Sane Republican

By Taylor Marsh on 30 December 2011

photo by Pete Souza

The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read.

I am “uncommitted” toward Obama. I’m uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

As Cenk reveals, he didn’t want to come down to “uncommitted,” but Pres. Obama made him do it. At least the door remains open to possibly voting for Obama.

Glenn Greenwald, writing this week in the UK Guardian, basically writes what I’ve been writing for three years: Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president.

But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush’s terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process?
Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor’s once-controversial terrorism polices. …

The best case to make for Pres. Obama in 2012 is that he’s the sane Republican.

Are you in?

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Hillary and Joe, Condi vs. Joe

By Taylor Marsh on 29 December 2011

The rumors are flying around the internets.

Robert Reich reveals the Democratic panic deep within the insiders by pushing a Hillary – Biden switch. He’s just the latest.

The subject of a Biden – Hillary switch makes my book, but I’ve yet to read anyone address the damage it would do to Pres. Obama, who right now is seeing his approval ratings rise. What would dumping Joe Biden, which isn’t going to happen, say about his candidacy? That he absolutely needs Hillary to win? There’s no proof that this is true.

Would Hillary supporters automatically vote for Pres. Obama if she’s on the ticket? Newsflash: Most Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama anyway.

This site was a leading anti-Puma venue in the 2008 general election. Would anti-Obama voters who tilt Democratic and to the left automatically vote for Obama if Hillary was his nominee? Could these people be inspired to vote Obama in order to save Hillary from humiliation of the possibility of not delivering for him?

With Robert Reich the latest to hoist the Hillary – Biden swtich, there is obviously real worry by insider Democrats that the base won’t be inspired to turn out for Obama alone.

For me, however, the most interesting rumor hitting my inbox lately is Condi versus Biden. An abundance of popcorn would be required for a Rice debate with Joe Biden.

But as the CBS video above from November 2011 reveals, she says “… I’m a policy person not a politician. …politics doesn’t appeal to me.”

But before anything would happen Pres. Obama would be forced to combat yet another push for the Biden – Clinton tango, something I think is ludicrous to suggest and, for what it’s worth, do not endorse.

Dr. “swatting flies” Rice was arguably the worst national security adviser in U.S. history.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile? A hijacked airplane as a missile? All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” – Condoleezza Rice

Another round of “mushroom clouds,” anyone?

There’s that little item “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.” that didn’t get much attention from her. Rice’s reaction to George Tenet telling her the U.S. needed to strike Afghanistan is equally disturbing.

Dr. Rice played third fiddle in the Rummy-Cheney fiefdom, then allowed herself to be humiliated by Pres. Bush, who wouldn’t let her do her job and even hung her out on torture.

Rice also demoted Richard Clarke, the man Pres. Clinton elevated to a cabinet position, because of the terrorism threat, including cyberterrorism. Then there’s the decision not to set up a principle’s meeting with Clarke until after 9/11.

Dr. Rice missed the Hamas moment, when Pres. Bush pushed for elections that landed them in power (from 2006), which rendered her “surprised” at the time. It should be noted that the Palestinians warned Bush they weren’t yet ready.

But no one would likely care.

In a year of the Republican circus primary shuffle, Condoleeza Rice comes off like Margaret Thatcher, only moderate.

Ms. Rice is an abortion rights advocate, so she’ll catch some flak from some. However, among suburban women who vote Republican, as well as the highly educated contingent, and independents, not to mention cafeteria Catholics, that will be a plus.

It’s just another rumor, but if Dr. Rice heard George W. Bush’s voice on the phone saying her country needed her could she resist?

I’m still waiting for Liz Cheney’s move, though she’s got plenty of time to make it.

Assuming Romney prevails, the most dangerous man for team Obama remains Chris Christie, though everyone should remember only the fringe people vote on vice presidential choice alone. That includes Robert Reich’s hail Mary panic pick, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Secy. Clinton Taking Heat for Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

By Taylor Marsh on 09 December 2011

Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the Conference on Internet Freedom, in The Hague, Netherlands. (State Dept Image by Jos van Leeuwen)

Yesterday, Secy. Clinton gave a speech on Internet freedom at the Hague. Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Clinton, as well as the Obama administration today, with the criticism well earned.

The subject is important, because there’s quite a flurry of activity right now surrounding SOPA, with all you need to know at TechDirt.

In the Senate, both the New York Times and the LA Times came out against the Protect IP Act, so have entrepreneurs. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been the champion against it, placing a hold on it.

The PROTECT IP Act Will Slow Start-up Innovation
McKinsey recently studied thirteen mature national economies and found that over the past five years, 21% of GDP growth can be directly attributed to the Internet. They found that 2.4 jobs were created for every job lost to Internet efficiencies. They also found that over the last fifteen years, an increase in Internet maturity is directly correlated to an average increase in real per capita GDP of $500. By contrast, it took 50 years to see that impact during the industrial revolution of the 19th century.
The Internet is good for the economy. It is also good for consumers. McKinsey found that Internet efficiencies put $64B back in U.S. consumer’s pockets in 2009. The full report is here.
So when considering legislation or regulation that would impact the basic structure of the Internet, we believe that legislators and regulators should be guided by a key tenet of the Hippocratic Oath “FIRST DO NO HARM”.

Clinton’s speech made her a target, because of the Administration’s history, which isn’t great. The State Dept. has a history of interesting choices when it comes to online communications as well.

Many of you may remember when I challenged the official blog of State, Dipnote, when they ignored the Green uprising in Iran, two years ago this month.

From Greenwald:

What Hillary Clinton is condemning here is exactly that which not only the administration in which she serves, but also she herself, has done in one of the most important Internet freedom cases of the last decade: WikiLeaks. And beyond that case, both Clinton specifically and the Obama administration generally have waged a multi-front war on Internet freedom.
… First, let us recall that many of WikiLeaks’ disclosures over the last 18 months have directly involved improprieties, bad acts and even illegalities on the part of Clinton’s own State Department. As part of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, she was caught ordering her diplomats at the U.N. to engage in extensive espionage on other diplomats and U.N. officials; in a classified memo, she demanded “forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers” for a whole slew of diplomats, actions previously condemned by the U.S. as illegal. WikiLeaks also revealed that the State Department — very early on in the Obama administration — oversaw a joint effort between its diplomats and GOP officials to pressure and coerce Spain to block independent judicial investigations into the torture policies of Bush officials: a direct violation of then-candidate Obama’s pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White House’s dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely “hypothetical.” WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clinton’s State Department about the U.S. role in Yemen were at best deeply misleading. And, of course, those disclosures revealed a litany of other truly bad acts by the U.S. Government generally.

One headline read like this: U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet.

The Obama administration has attacked email privacy:

In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages–a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.

Regarding the Wikileaks diplomatic dump, did you know that wannabe diplomats are being warned off commenting on the cables? According to a report by the New York times, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, a hub for future diplomats, got a missive from the State Dept. warning students that if they ever hope to work at State they should “avoid posting comments online about the leaked diplomatic cables.”

From: “Office of Career Services”

Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST:

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,
Office of Career Services

A grand jury was opened last May to investigate the leaking of these documents as well.

You may also remember that last January, the U.S. subpoenaed Twitter in order to gain access to the accounts of people associated with Wikileaks.

The White House warned federal employees that if they dare to even read the Wikileak documents they’re breaking the law.

The White House Office of Management and Budget blasted out a memo that if you looked at the cables on your BlackBerry you were breaking the law.

The structure for the creeping security state was laid after 9/11 during the Bush administration. There is a lot of evidence that the Obama administration and politicians are using what happened in the last decade to further encroach on the privacy of Americans, but also on tech entrepreneurs, which could end up having a chilling impact on us all.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Newt Needs to Win in a Sprint

By Taylor Marsh on 05 December 2011

Mr. Gingrich needs an early upset to help him win in a sprint, otherwise, it’s a good bet that iron man Mitt will bleed Newt dry.

From the New York Times:

Surging in polls is one thing. But as Newt Gingrich seeks to turn his impressive performance in surveys into votes, he is scrambling madly to build the kind of organization that Mitt Romney has methodically put in place for a year, one that will let him compete through all 50 contests, often in multiple states at once.
[..] The Republican contest will test whether Mr. Romney’s meticulous planning can overtake a burst of momentum for Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Romney’s team has said all along that it has expected a tough battle for the nomination, and it has sought to emphasize that point in recent days with its new “earn it” rallying cry for volunteers and other supporters. But Mr. Gingrich presents an especially difficult rival for them, one who is showing signs of corralling support from the Tea Party movement and other grass-roots conservatives while also being able to point to his governing experience.

As for Pres. Obama, his worry certainly isn’t Newt Gingrich, who he can beat in a walk. It’s the outside candidates that would ultimately arise from a Gingrich nomination win, making the process a competition for voters who are disgruntled over Obama’s lack of vision and uninspiring first term.

Tomorrow Pres. Obama heads for Kansas to, as Mike Allen puts it, “channel Teddy Roosevelt.” That’s actually funny. Since Mr. Obama is taking more money from Wall Street than any other candidate, plus the big firms have benefited more during his term than in all eight of George W. Bush’s, only the gullible will buy this theater. He’s counting on there being a lot of those voters still around.

Newt Gingrich’s rise on the right proves there are in some quarters. But Newt will need more than Herman Cain’s endorsement.

If outside challengers catch hold against the two corporate, Wall Street candidates, with Pres. Obama leading that category, there will be a tough fight.

Who knows, maybe The Donald will jump back in. Now that would be fun. Ridiculous, as well as fitting the times, but fun.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Obama’s Concession on Bush Tax Cuts Bites Again

By Taylor Marsh on 21 November 2011

There is no substitute for political courage.

In 2010, citing the frail economy, the president made the choice to extend even the cuts he had promised to fight. The White House claimed victory at the time, pointing to GOP concessions in the same agreement on jobless benefits and a payroll tax cut for workers. The deal also helped Obama regain momentum after his party’s midterm losses a month earlier, though the extension of the Bush tax cuts was seen by many Democrats as an unnecessary concession. – Supercommittee’s failure pushes Bush tax cuts to forefront of 2012 campaign

Very few saw extending the Bush tax cuts as a moment where Pres. Obama regained momentum. However, the concession was born before the midterm elections when Pres. Obama chose not to have a Democratic economic message to compete with the Tea Party.

Meanwhile, nobody is doing anything about jobs or economic growth or anything that will turn the situation around for the 99%. An issue that didn’t get Pres. Obama’s attention until he was running for re-election.

There are plenty of people to blame. What we need are politicians that don’t belong to the Democratic or Republican parties in Congress in greater numbers. Get on that, will you, America? Please.

But there is just no way Republicans can make the case that the wealthiest 1% should have tax cuts while the 99% suck it up and watch income disparity grow. But Grover Norquist thinks they can.

Pres. Obama is weak on leadership, but he’s one of the best campaigners in Democratic Party history. If he takes the message that Republicans think the wealthiest need a tax cut, while they ask for Social Security recipients to pay for it, to the people, I’d take that to Las Vegas and place the house on a bet. That’s an unbeatable message for Barack Obama.

It would put Mitt Romney in a very uncomfortable position, especially with all the negative advertising team Obama will unload on Mr. Corporation.

These games are killing this country, with this latest development nothing compared to what we’re going to see as everyone scrambles to nuke the automatic cutbacks that are supposed to be triggered by the supercommittee failing.

George W. Bush has got to be laughing. Just when we think we’re rid of that man his fetid policies drag us back under. Again.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama

By Taylor Marsh on 21 November 2011

**Postscript added**

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll. – The Hillary Moment

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

I’m not either.

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

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

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama let too big to fail banks rake in record cash, in fact, more in Pres. Obama’s first term than in all eight of George W. Bush, because Barack Obama was always the corporate guy in a elite political party who is bought off by both banks and big business. He had no intention of reeling in the banks to any degree, which is proven through the appointments of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

But I wasn’t disappointed in Tim Geithner or Larry Summers, because it’s not like Barack Obama, who received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in his time, was going to buck the boys that represent those jackals.

I knew Pres. Obama would not lead the country on issues he believed strongly in, inspiring Congress to find consensus, because what he does is compromise between ideas presented to him.

I wrote over 4 years ago that Pres. Obama would not fight for entitlements.

I also wrote that no one should take his anti-war Iraq speech as any indication of what he’d do as president, because his votes in the United States Senate on these matters were exactly like Hillary Clinton’s. I wrote that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate he would have likely voted for the Iraq war, just as all the Democratic presidential hopefuls did from the Senate, with his presidency proving that possibility very real.

It’s hard to take anyone touting Mr. Obama as the lesser of two evils, as Obama supporters do most often, while as President he’s shown a penchant toward militarism that rivals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

I wasn’t disappointed when Pres. Obama decided to bomb Libya. See above.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama assassinated an American citizen abroad using executive branch powers, because he’s been following the George W. Bush presidential model all the way.

So, I wasn’t surprised that instead of showing economic muscle, Pres. Obama opted for 2,500 Marines in Australia. See above.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama handed over health care to Sen. Max Baucus and the insurance industry, because I watched him at the very first health care debate, sponsored by CAP/SEIU, in Nevada, long before I back Hillary. He came in and spoke about health care without a plan or a clue on what he would do.

I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama’s compromise and capitulation, because there was never any evidence that he’d fight for Democratic principles.

I’m not disappointed that before the 2010 midterms Pres. Obama didn’t lead with an economic message to rival the Tea Party, because he’s not made one argument for progressive economics, preferring to tout Ronald Reagan a lot more often than Bill Clinton, the man who made Obama’s neoliberal presidency possible.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama then caved to Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts in December 2010, because after all, if he’s not going to fight before an election why would he fight afterward when his Democratic majority was in shambles?

I wasn’t even disappointed in the midterm outcomes themselves or that women split their vote with Republicans, with seniors tilting right, because Pres. Obama doesn’t make the Democratic case for why they shouldn’t.

I wasn’t disappointed that across the country state houses turned red, because Pres. Obama set the Republicans up by making things easier for them.

I wasn’t so much disappointed in Pres. Obama’s selling out women to the Bart Stupak crowd as wishing he’d simply voted “present” as he did in Illinois.

I wasn’t even disappointed when Pres. Obama didn’t fight for Elizabeth Warren to head the agency that was her brainchild.

Pres. Obama isn’t a fighter, that is, unless he’s fighting for himself.

I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama for not being a more progressive leader, because I knew he wasn’t a progressive from the start.

It’s also not disappointing that Pres. Obama has made the Democratic Party more like the Republican Party through his continual leaning to the right, because both parties are basically the same these days, though the Republican right’s crazy is more virulent, while the Democratic left is just feckless.

I’m not disappointed Pres. Obama didn’t get a primary challenger, because you’d have to be nuts to go up against a man so thoroughly bought and paid for by Wall Street and big business.

I’m not disappointed that Republicans are “deranged,” because that’s nothing new and so hearing the Obama supporter in the video make the case that Pres. Obama is better than the alternative isn’t disappointing, because as I’ve proven here, what else do they have?

Pres. Obama is better than the current leading alternative on the Republican side, which today is Newt Gingrich.

I’m just not sure what that says about this country or our chances of getting out of the mess we’re in.

I’m not disappointed that Mitt Romney will still likely be the one to challenge Pres. Obama, because they’re the flip side of each big party, matching each other pretty well on aloofness, elitism, lack of power to relate, cluelessness of the 99% and just how badly most everyone would like to have better choices than either of these two men.

It’s just the latest edition of the Hillary Effect.

POSTSCRIPT: The only relevant aspect to the so-called “Democratic pollsters” writing in the WSJ is the short bit I quote at the top. These very real numbers are indeed the inspiration for yet another chapter in the Hillary Effect. So, not even the opining of Fox News Channel shills can negate that the Hillary Effect has been in sway since 2008, going back to when Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s vice president, all of which is detailed in my book. As for those throwing around the false talking point about “Obama hatred,” there is absolutely no evidence of it, except among right wing extremists and wingnut conservatives, with the American people still liking Pres. Obama personally. As for me, I’ve been consistent over a long period of time. I’ve called out Secretary Clinton’s militarism and where we disagree on foreign policy (here, here, here, here, here). The case is made in my book The Hillary Effect, which anyone interested in the history of the last few years should read.

video h/t The Moderate Voice

Read full story · Comments { 64 }

Stop the debates

By Taylor Marsh on 13 November 2011

A network spokeswoman, Sonya McNair, said its livestream had been overwhelmed by an unexpectedly large audience, and brushed off complaints. The final half-hour had been added, she said, for the benefit of South Carolina viewers. “We weren’t programming it for reporters in Washington D.C.,” she said, even as it emerged that — in an unusual breakdown between network and affiliates — none of the four CBS stations in the state actually carried the last half hour. – CBS panned for Republican debate performance

The bullshit Olympics we’re witnessing needs to stop.

Please, for everyone’s sake.

No, wait. The Scott Pelley and CBS debacle was not a debate or a discussion.

Anyone else have whiplash?

Last night we had politicians who think they can be commander in chief actually say we should cut off aid to Pakistan. NO, really (emphasis required).

It was Rick Santorum who rebuked that notion. Rick. Santorum. He joins Jon Huntsman on one issue.

My head is spinning.

It would also be nice if we all understood that these individuals, for whatever crazy reason, actually do think they could run this country. That’s a serious thing to say.

I respect the ode to ideology, really I do. But Italy just went down. Italy.

Love them or hate them, these sincere people on the stage auditioning for the GOP nomination, since the process has become so vaudevillian, are taking up a lot of political air space, which I’m sure thrills the Obama administration and OFA, but there are potentially big developments going on all around us, and we need a better option than what we’ve currently got.

As I pointed out just yesterday, many Democrats not only passively acquiesce to Obama’s continuation of core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but enthusiastically cheer it as proof that they, too, can be Tough and Strong (manly virtues demonstrated by how many human beings their leader kills from afar). So here you have Think Progress heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is literally the most radical power a President can seize: the power to target — in total secrecy and with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution: specifically, assassination-by-CIA. – Glenn Greenwald

What’s the difference between Republicans and Pres. Obama on foreign policy, waterboarding?

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy platform seems to be slam taught, in a way similar to W., so it’s coming off more ideological than something moored in intellectual understanding.

I may disagree with Ron Paul, but Herman Cain’s foreign policy vacuousness scares the crap out of me. What he’s proposing to the U.S. economy is even worse.

Machine gun Q&As are worthless. Of course the candidates need more time. So apportion a set amount of time to each person. Then keep a clock on how much time each candidate has utilized, with a maximum of 4 minutes at one time. They’ll have to learn to use their time with discretion and choose the topics on which they want to pontificate more carefully. Oh, and the candidates with the higher poll numbers get more time. You can even give points for straw poll wins the debate immediately after the polling.

Or at the very least find moderators and producers who know what the hell they are doing.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

REPORT: Wall Street Firms Earned More in Obama’s First Term than in 8 Years of Bush

By Taylor Marsh on 07 November 2011

The president, however, has not shunned Wall Street. He has courted financial executives for campaign donations, including inviting them to a campaign gathering at the White House. He has attracted more money for his campaign and for the Democratic National Committee from financial firm employees than all of the GOP candidates combined — a total of $15.6 million. – Wall Street’s resurgent prosperity frustrates its claims, and Obama’s

From the Washington Post:

The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.
Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show.

Like George W. Bush, Pres. Obama has failed to inspire financial institutions to increase lending to “prime borrowers.” More:

A recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks did not significantly increase lending after being bailed out. Rather, they used taxpayer money, in part, to invest in risky securities that profited from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their investment returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.
“If the goal was to support lending, it would have been sensible to require a portion of the money to support credit origination,” said Ran Duchin, one of the finance professors who completed the study. “Lending to prime consumers was not the most profitable use of their capital.”

The bigger the bank, the more money they make for themselves.

Profits have also rebounded. The largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, earned $34 billion in profit in the first half of the year, nearly matching what they earned in the same period in 2007 and more than in the same period of any other year. – Wall Street’s resurgent prosperity frustrates its claims, and Obama’s

This concludes yet another chapter in the Barack Obama marketing and myth story versus reality, brought to you by your hostess, the recovering partisan.

The party’s over, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep

By Taylor Marsh on 27 October 2011

The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott Olsen’s assault, it seems even more relevant.

Interestingly, Olsen is reportedly from Wisconsin, the state that Gov. Scott Walker ignited with his anti-democratic view of economic equality.

As a reminder, Pres. Obama and the Democrats did not mount any economic message for the 2010 midterms. Then after getting their… um.. hats handed to them in December, Pres. Obama made a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. Now that candidate Obama is on the campaign stump, however, he says he won’t extend them again.

Of course, now that Pres. Obama’s own political future is on the line he’s sounding like a class warrior who has religion. One by one on cable, the talking heads proclaim he’s “back,” his message is winning, etc.

It’s not hard to believe Pres. Obama’s populist message, conveniently timed and politically motivated, is winning. The message to back up the middle class and working stiffs, one that I’ve been drilling home for years, is always a winner. It’s just unfortunate that Mr. Obama only finds it when his own fortunes need a lift.

It’s also why I laugh out loud when David Axelrod or team Obama go after Mitt Romney, making the argument that slick Mitt will say anything to get elected. If that charge sounds familiar it should. Yes, Mitt Romney is a Wall Street jackal. Obama’s not in that league, but he doesn’t have any problem taking campaign contributions from those who are. You decipher the difference.

Ronald Reagan started sapping the American dream in the 1980s, which lasted for 12 years.

The Bush tax cuts and two wars off the books in the 2000s did the rest.

When Pres. Obama came into office, the economic die was already cast.

Unfortunately, Obama chose to hire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, the latter the man who convinced Pres. Bill Clinton to dismantle Glass-Steagall, though when Clinton finally signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, Congress had passed it with a veto proof majority. An apology from Clinton is hardly enough, but you would have thought Barack Obama would have learned before entering office what these actions had wrought. Instead, he doubled down on known economic quantities and friends of the establishment, moneyed class. People who helped the economic crisis occur.

Elizabeth Warren offered Pres. Obama a glimmer of hope and a way out of the mess Geithner and Summers had made of his economic message. Unfortunately, Tim Geithner had no intention of letting her gain power and Obama had no intention of using his presidential clout to make sure the woman who understood the financial plight of we the people had any.

From Confidence Men, the book that sent the White House into swift damage control, by Ron Suskind:

“… Only those in his inner circle at Treasury, though, can read what’s behind that expression: a string of private efforts across the past year to neutralize Warren. The previous fall, Geithner huddled with top aides to develop what one called an “Elizabeth Warren strategy,” a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert. He never worked out a viable strategy–a way to meet with Warren without drawing undesirable comparisons–and so, like the president, he didn’t.
What the Treasury Department did do, unbeknownst to Warren, was embrace demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it. [...] The industry managed to get the proposed agency shrunk into a bureau that would live under the auspices of the Federal Reserve…

It may seem like all of the events currently swirling are unrelated and happening separately, but as days and weeks pass there is a common thread running through them all and it’s not going away.

AFTER-TAX INCOME GREW MORE FOR HIGHEST-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The title to this piece has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

A Word About Iraq

By Taylor Marsh on 23 October 2011

“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she told CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked whether Iran’s relationship with Iraq is a concern. – Clinton warns Iran against moving into Iraq

President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq during a secure video teleconference in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 21, 2011. Seated at the table, from left, are: Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President ; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Puneet Talwar, Senior Director for Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; and Chief of Staff Bill Daley. Pictured onscreen are: at left, Prime Minister al-Maliki, along with two aides; in center, Vice President Joe Biden; at right, General Lloyd Austin, Commanding General of U.S. Forces - Iraq and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

November 17, 2008 – Tina Susman BAGHDAD — Iraq’s Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans. T[...] The agreement is to replace the United Nations mandate expiring Dec. 31 that gives U.S. forces the legal basis for being in Iraq. [...] The agreement calls for American forces to pull out of Iraqi cities by the end of June and fully withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. – Iraq Cabinet OKs U.S. exit schedule

Before Barack Obama was inaugurated, the Iraq Cabinet voted and affirmed the U.S. military withdrawal of December 31, 2011. That means the timeline was formulated when Pres. George W. Bush was still in office. It seems collective amnesia has set it, with few remembering the facts. If we started talking about the details in Josh Rogin’s piece, “How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations,” the reality beneath what we saw happen on Friday would unravel.

Spencer Ackerman joins Josh Rogin in reporting the outside elements swirling upon Pres. Obama’s announcement. Both reports come under damning headlines, with Rogin getting an adamant response from the White House after his went up. Rogin’s piece didn’t make anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very happy. Ackerman’s post likely pissed off the State Department too. Here’s an excerpt:

But the fact is America’s military efforts in Iraq aren’t coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries. The 2007 Nisour Square shootings by State’s security contractors, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed, marked one of the low points of the war. Now, State will be commanding a much larger security presence, the equivalent of a heavy combat brigade. In July, Danger Room exclusively reported that the Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors’ rules of engagement.
That means no one outside the State Department knows how its contractors will behave as they ferry over 10,000 U.S. State Department employees throughout Iraq — which, in case anyone has forgotten, is still a war zone. Since Iraq wouldn’t grant legal immunity to U.S. troops, it is unlikely to grant it to U.S. contractors, particularly in the heat and anger of an accident resulting in the loss of Iraqi life.
It’s a situation with the potential for diplomatic disaster. And it’s being managed by an organization with no experience running the tight command structure that makes armies cohesive and effective.
You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, to hunt persons affiliated with al-Qaida. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has conspicuously stated that al-Qaida still has 1,000 Iraqi adherents, which would make it the largest al-Qaida affiliate in the world.
So far, there are three big security firms with lucrative contracts to protect U.S. diplomats. Triple Canopy, a longtime State guard company, has a contract worth up to $1.53 billion to keep diplos safe as they travel throughout Iraq. Global Strategies Group will guard the consulate at Basra for up to $401 million. SOC Incorporated will protect the mega-embassy in Baghdad for up to $974 million. State has yet to award contracts to guard consulates in multiethnic flashpoint cities Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as the outpost in placid Irbil.

These reports are both important, because they give atmospherics.

It’s Ackerman’s “entering a new phase” analysis that I think is worth emphasizing.

I disagree with people who are not acknowledging the importance of what Pres. Obama announced, as well as the risks involved, which both reports I mention above reveal. Obama’s announcement is no small matter.

The bookend, however, is that we are entering a new phase of our relationship with Iraq’s government and people. Do people actually expect for the U.S. to go from preemption to no involvement at all? Certainly people’s intelligence for foreign policy isn’t that low.

Given that I’ve written about the mega-embassy in Baghdad, I’m not surprised at all there will be a multi-billion dollar expenditure to protect it after U.S. military forces withdraw. This was telegraphed long ago.

I’m wary of what awaits after we withdraw from Iraq, which is one reason I was against going in and said so at the time.

Both Ackerman’s and Rogin’s reports should be read as they are offered. Reporters doing their job informing people, at least those who are willing to listen to facts and realities on the ground in Iraq as the U.S. military prepares to leave.

What matters in the discussion is that our involvement in Iraq is not over. That’s the sobering and salient point that everyone needs to swallow.

Anyone focused on declaring any kind of “victory” or fixated on trying to claim credit for the current Administration doesn’t understand the collective breath-holding a lot of people will be doing once our troops begin withdrawing. This includes Pres. Obama, whose job it is as commander in chief to oversee the withdrawal that’s about to begin and the aftermath it leaves behind.

Meanwhile, the Republican snarls will rise to a crescendo as the 2012 smackdown gets closer.

President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq. – Mitt Romney (via Ben Smith)

There is real risk to what Pres. Obama is doing on Iraq by following Bush’s timetable, though I’m certainly not suggesting we stay, because we must not. But if Obama’s poll numbers were better among his own base it’s my belief he would not be following it. The forces from the State Dept. Spencer Ackerman reports about points to a reality that leads to this possibility.

The final outcome of what Republicans and Democrats concocted through allowing Pres. Bush to choose preemption is something we may not know for many years.

As for the short-term, I’ve got my fingers crossed that Pres. Obama made the wise decision, which brings with it a shift to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, something that doesn’t fill me with confidence. Secy. Clinton will have her hands full managing this feat, with the track record of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security nothing to laud. If you’re not worried about this development you don’t understand the magnitude of how badly things could go wrong and how very quickly, too.

What Bush wrought in Iraq is not Pres. Obama’s fault, the timeline Bush’s as well. However, once Pres. Obama makes the turn he’s planned, he’ll own what happens next in Iraq. Digest that.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama Deploys 100 Troops to Uganda

By Taylor Marsh on 15 October 2011

**bumped**

By end of 2011, SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command] estimates its forces will be in 120 countries, up from 60 under President Bush. #NotBreakingNews – Jeremy Scahill (via Twitter)

We’ve been engaged in Uganda for years, but one hundred troops? Seriously?

In an update to his report, Jake Tapper adds: A Defense Department official tells ABC’s Luis Martinez at the Pentagon that the U.S. troops will be in Africa “for a few months in an advisory role.”

Oh. My. God. People are so ignorant they don’t realize what can be triggered from “an advisory role” position.

How many military engagements has Pres. Obama launched? I’ve lost count.

Hey, but at least he notified Congress this time, evidently getting the message, at least in part.

Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army
The president in his letter noted that Congress passed “the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” signed into law on May 24, 2010, in which, the president said, “the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” [...]
When the president signed that letter in May 2010, he said the bill “crystallizes the commitment of the United States to help bring an end to the brutality and destruction that have been a hallmark of the LRA across several countries for two decades, and to pursue a future of greater security and hope for the people of central Africa. The Lord’s Resistance Army preys on civilians – killing, raping, and mutilating the people of central Africa; stealing and brutalizing their children; and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Its leadership, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, has no agenda and no purpose other than its own survival. It fills its ranks of fighters with the young boys and girls it abducts. By any measure, its actions are an affront to human dignity.”

Log this one under the same humanitarian emotionalism that convinced Pres. Obama to bomb Libya.

All of those Democrats and progressives who utilized candidate Obama’s anti Iraq war speech to elevate him above all of the other Democrats really do look foolish today.

At this rate, Iran will be next. We’re in the conservative throes of a presidential election season where the Democratic president and his people think his best card is military. I mean, really.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Mullen: Pakistan Exporting Violence to Afghanistan

By Taylor Marsh on 23 September 2011

This was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen’s last testimony before retiring. It’s SecDef Panetta’s first appearance in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, with the video via C-SPAN.

From ABC News (yesterday):

[...] Mullen even went so far as to say that Pakistan is “exporting violence” and that Pakistan’s intelligence agency provided the Haqqanis with support for their recent terror attacks in Kabul.
Mullen went further than defense officials who’ve said that the Haqqani Network was responsible for the recent terror attacks in Kabul prior to former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani’s assassination, although the bomber’s affiliation has yet to be determined.
The Haqqanis are “veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency [ISI],” he said in opening remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that it had provided the Haqqanis with support to conduct the Kabul attacks.
“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Mullen said of the recent attack on a base in Wardak that wounded 77 U.S. soldiers. “We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the June 28 attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”
Both Mullen and Panetta described the turn to high-profile attacks in Afghanistan as a shift in tactics because insurgents are losing on the battlefield. Mullen said they are “as much about headlines and playing on the fears of a traumatized people, as they are about inflicting casualties, maybe even more so.”
He added, “We must not misconstrue them. They are serious and significant in shaping perceptions but they do not represent a sea change in the odds of military success.”
Mullen said Pakistan’s government has chosen to “use violent extremism as an instrument of policy,” which jeopardizes its relationship with the United States and its role as a player in the region.

Former Pres. George W. Bush had a “Musharaff policy,” as it came to be known, which did us no good at all.

After Pres. Obama gave the go ahead for Seal Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden, who had obviously been protected by factions inside the Pakistani government, as well as the ISI, our relationship became even more tense.

Mullen’s accusation doesn’t surprise anyone and the blunt assessment is something that’s been obvious for many years, even amid billions and billions of dollars of U.S. aid.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

« Previous 1 2 3 … 16 Next »

TAYLOR MUST READS

Lanny Davis Joins Booker and other Democrats Slamming Obama Bain Ads Against Romney
The attacks on Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker (D) by the more vitriolic liberal commentators for what he said about [...]
It’s Not News that Romney Can Win
MITT ROMNEY’S LUCKY the Republican primaries unmasked his warts long before anyone started paying attention. Sure America saw the clown [...]
The Choice for Romney is Liz Cheney
Why not the best for President Obama and the Democratic party? And how much more will victory be worth having [...]
Oh Donna, How We Danced
DONNA SUMMER was writing “Love to Love You Baby”; I was Miss Missouri. “Last Dance” came out in 1978, the [...]
Edward Klein’s Jeremiah Wright Interview Goes Wide with Swift-boating Proposal, and Sean Hannity’s Help
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in [...]
Trayvon Martin Knuckle Injury: Small Abrasion, 1/4 Inch in Size
DEFENSE HACKS led by “Just One Minute” made a lot of noise on Wednesday, writing Trayvon Martin “showed bloody knuckles,” [...]
Romney’s Bill Clinton Swipe Followed by Whopper Rove Ad
MITT ROMNEY IS betting that tweaking Pres. Obama on Bill Clinton in Iowa will land, while just making stuff up. [...]
Hillary’s Vogue
“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if [...]
Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation
“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been [...]
Obama’s Composite Girlfriend Creates Rip van Winkle Awakening
The success of “Dreams” has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has [...]
Ann Romney’s Style
IT’S FABULOUS and she can afford it. When I saw it on CBS “This Morning,” I knew it would catch [...]
Arrogant Amnesia: Obama Gets OBL, Republicans Stuck with ‘Mission Accomplished’ Cod Piece Photo Op
AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA in the Situation Room with Brian Williams on the bin Laden raid has exploded. Sen. [...]
Gritty GIRLS Takes Over
“You could not pay me enough to be 24 again.” – female doctor giving Hannah a pelvic exam Inspired genius. [...]
Beyond Timothy Leary and Valley of the Dolls: Psychedelic Drugs and Healing in the 21st Century
“Rick Doblin has done a lot for the field, but he is more of a populist,” Grob says. “We need [...]
Shrill for the Women’s Vote: Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen Go to War
My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance last night on CNN’s AC360, where I said that I thought [...]
For Zocalo Public Square: When My Butt Kicked Me, by Taylor Marsh
A Former Dancer Learns to Work Out Again After a Puzzling Injury Beyond politics. A very different type of piece [...]
Erick Erickson Gets the ‘Joe Scarborough Award’
As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social [...]
Mad Men Megan Draper’s Black Pantie Moment
“You’re too old. I don’t need an old person.” – Megan Draper, “Mad Men” Megan Draper’s cutting “old person” line [...]
The Hill: Women are the Real Game Changers, by Taylor Marsh
I wrote a piece for The Hill yesterday. Here’s a snippet: HBO’s “Game Change,” adapted from the blockbuster book by [...]
America is a Woman
**updated** The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing [...]
Joe Scarborough’s Weird DM Rant Invades My Weekend
*updated below* So much for keep calm and carry on, what Joe Scarborough proclaims to be his motto. It was [...]
The Weekend Pres. Obama Gave Women Their Own Social Security
But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much [...]
Joe Scarborough Compares Obama Contraceptive Mandate to Federal Govt. Mandating Southern Baptist Female Deacons
“… I think women should be deacons as well as men. …But if the federal government, if the Justice Department [...]
Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context
The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health [...]
U.S. News & World Report: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
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 [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
UK Guardian Interview for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
The Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]

TM Connect

The Radically Religious Politics of Rick Santorum

Secy. Clinton’s Strength at State Seen in Obama Budget

Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

U.S. News & World Report: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh

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

Financial Shenanigans Amid Gingrich-Romney War

Israel’s ‘False Flag’ Op, Posing as C.I.A.

The Cutter Memo on Mitt and Bain

Barack Obama, the Sane Republican

Hillary and Joe, Condi vs. Joe

Secy. Clinton Taking Heat for Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

Newt Needs to Win in a Sprint

Obama’s Concession on Bush Tax Cuts Bites Again

Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama

Stop the debates

REPORT: Wall Street Firms Earned More in Obama’s First Term than in 8 Years of Bush

OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep

A Word About Iraq

Obama Deploys 100 Troops to Uganda

Mullen: Pakistan Exporting Violence to Afghanistan

Tag Cloud

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TAYLOR MUST READS

New Media