TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

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

Tag Archives | Independents

The Hillary Effect: Sarah Cashes In

Longer version cross-posted at Huffington Post.

The first to benefit from the Hillary effect, Sarah Palin is asserting her prowess in 2010 like no other female has done in political history. Her politics are not mine, but credit is due. The void created by Hillary’s historic presidential run, at a time when Sarah made her own history on the right by being the first Republican female on a national ticket, has been filled by an avalanche of women, several of whom on the right have been encouraged and endorsed by Sarah. That she’s leading the Tea Party faction inside the GOP at a time when the Republican brand has crashed works in her favor, no matter what Democrats say. Oh, and remember that George W. Bush beat Gore and Kerry. Besides, it’s not like the Smart Set in Washington is winning raves.

Read John Ellis, everybody else is.

[...] “She’s too stupid” is what the Establishment GOP really thinks about Sarah Palin. “Good-looking,” but a “ditz.” This is unfertile ground, since Palin can turn the argument on a dime and say: “They drive the country into bankruptcy, they underwrite Fannie and Freddie, they bail out Goldman Sachs, they fight wars they don’t want to win, they say enforcing the immigration laws is silly and they call me stupid! I’ll give you a choice: you can have their smarts or my stupidity, which one do you want?” A large number of GOP presidential primary voters will take Palin’s “stupidity” in a heartbeat.

What this means is two things: (1) the pressure on former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to run for the GOP presidential nomination will increase as the year moves along, and (2) the likelihood of a strong independent party candidacy increases as Palin’s support within the GOP broadens. Oh, and it also means one other thing: President Obama is not doomed. – John Ellis

Andrew Sullivan, perpetual Hillary hater and Palin conspiracy theorist, writes about this today; at least he understands Palin’s power, which is more than I can say for most, especially on the left. Interesting that career Hillary hater Chris Matthews gets what’s possible for Sarah, too. In the post-Hillary political era, it seems some men have finally awakened.

As regulars know, I’ve been writing about Sarah’s rise for over a year.

Sarah Palin is the first to benefit from the Hillary effect, which has caused a ripple in the conservative movement and beyond. Not bad having five governors who have a good shot at winning in November, with Congress certainly to tilt towards Republicans whether Democrats retain control or not. If Meg Whitman wins in California it could become Obama’s first nightmare looking to 2012. Call it a slow walk or a steady drum beat that’s getting louder, but during 2010 Sarah Palin has shown why her plan to bail on Alaska and turn the heat up in the lower 48 was the best move for her. It’s also been very good for Republicans, particularly conservative “mama grizzlies,” who are her prime target, along with the military, which has always been the first mention out of her mouth in any event.

In an Iowa poll released last month, Mitt came in at 62% (and is still one to watch), with Sarah at 58%, Newt next, but it’s not even begun, with the “mama grizzlies” just getting organized. In South Carolina, Mitt might have given Nikki Haley the nod first, but it was Sarah’s star power who brought in the klieg lights to lift her up.

In the post-Hillary political era, women are rising. Sarah’s the first to fill that void and her instincts have been dead on since she took to Facebook and wrote about “death panels” taking Democrats off message and igniting the tea partiers, but also when she left Alaska behind to take on 2010. No one knows where she’ll end up, especially since Palin hasn’t proved she can widen her support beyond her own choir, which she must do to be president.

However, way too many people are forgetting that that doesn’t matter in the Republican nomination process. A good portion of primary voters are her choir.

Sarah Palin’s just getting started.

But remember, Barack Obama is a formidable opponent. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, so whoever shows up for 2012, they’ll be in for the fight of their life. So while betting against Obama may be popular with some right now, it will take a lot more than what the right is offering now to get the job done.

Read full story · Comments { 85 }

Obama Slides to New Low with Independents

Thirty-eight percent of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40% in a Gallup Daily tracking weekly aggregate. [...] Over the past year, Obama has lost support among all party groups, though the decline has been steeper among independents than among Republicans or Democrats. Today’s 38% approval rating among independents is 18 percentage points lower than the 56% found July 6-12, 2009. – Gallup


In mid-term election years, Reagan and Clinton all faced horrific challenges, losing seats, but retained the presidency two years later. Bush 43 actually gained seats in 2002, with a wave of commander in chief support after 9/11.

But the signs are not good right now for Democrats, despite some individual bright spots, which is mainly because of the economy and how people feel about things right now. However, none of this should worry anyone until the fall season, because Republicans continue to sound out of step, with Tea Party activists like Sharon Angle and Rand Paul leaving no room for adults.

The fact remains that Pres. Obama has dropped 18 points with independents since this time last year. Is anyone surprised?

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Crist Vetoes Ultrasound Abortion Bill

This is what I’ve been waiting to see from Charlie Crist. News out of Florida today:

As he positions himself to the center in the U.S. Senate race, Gov. Charlie Crist on Friday vetoed a measure requiring most women to pay for an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus before they can have an abortion.

“This bill places an inappropriate burden on woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy,” Crist said in his veto message.

Way to go, Charlie.

This is important, because around the country states are encroaching on women’s rights, which Center for American Progress runs down in a great “abortion bills by the numbers” piece. How are they doing it? By passing mini Stupak amendments.

In addition to the insurance restrictions, abortion opponents are also using their newfound leverage to advance many of their old ideas—such as requiring ultrasounds before an abortion—and to push through a few novel ones, as well.

Here are the high—or should we say low—lights:

23: The number of provisions that have passed in the nine states that have enacted new abortion-related restrictions so far this year—Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

14: The number of states that have introduced laws this year that ban or limit abortion coverage in private insurance plans—either those purchased in the new health exchanges, in private markets outside of those exchanges, in government employee plans, or some combination thereof. So far, Arizona, Mississippi, and Tennessee have enacted such bills.

18: The number of states that have introduced legislation this year that requires abortion providers to offer their patients an ultrasound. Half of these bills mandate that the provider perform the ultrasound, regardless of whether the woman wants one, and a few go so far as to require the provider to show and/or describe the image to the woman. None of these bills provide state funding to cover the extra cost of the ultrasound. So far, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia have enacted ultrasound bills.*

14: The number of states that have introduced legislation or ballot initiatives this year to amend the state constitution to establish that legal personhood begins at conception, which would limit access to abortion, contraception, fertility treatments, and other medical services.

9: The number of states that have introduced bills this year that would criminalize abortions done purportedly because of the sex or race of the fetus.* Only Oklahoma’s bill has thus far become law.

9: The number of states that have introduced Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws this year that impose burdensome and medically unnecessary requirements on abortion clinics that are much more rigorous than the requirements imposed on other outpatient medical practices.*

8: The number of bills that Oklahoma passed this year. The governor signed bills outlawing “sex-selective” abortion; allowing employees to refuse to participate in abortions, fetal transplants, procedures involving embryos, and euthanasia; requiring clinics to post signs saying that women cannot be forced to have abortions; and increasing restrictions on RU-486, also known as the “abortion pill.” The governor vetoed an insurance coverage ban, mandatory ultrasounds with a detailed description of the fetus, a 38-question survey about each abortion procedure, and immunity for doctors who omit or provide inaccurate information to women carrying fetuses with abnormalities. The legislature successfully overrode all the vetoes except the insurance ban. The ultrasound law is not in effect yet, pending a court challenge.

2: The number of bills introduced this year that ban abortion before viability. Nebraska banned abortion for almost any reason after 20 weeks gestation based on the unsubstantiated and highly contested claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point. This law is clearly unconstitutional under current precedent and was passed in order to challenge Roe v. Wade. South Carolina introduced similar legislation but did not vote on it.*

1: The number of laws enacted this year (in Utah) that define criminal homicide to include a “knowing” act by a pregnant woman that causes a miscarriage or stillbirth. This bill is so broad that it could apply to a woman who smokes cigarettes or takes prescription medication.

While state legislators have been busy making abortion almost impossible to obtain for an untold number of women, they have done little to provide women with the support they need to carry their pregnancies to term, have childbirth options available to them, and raise the children they have.

Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party helped make Bart Stupak a household name.  This is what they’ve wrought.

Some naive women think our individual freedoms are set in stone.  These views are as uninformed as they are dangerous.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Politics is an Emotional Sport


What I want from politicians is competency. It doesn’t matter if a politician feels my pain if he or she doesn’t know what he’s doing or if what he’s doing makes matters worse. See George W. Bush. But to prove the point, Pres. Obama is reportedly going down to the Gulf next week to spend some quality time and “get his hands dirty.” BP’s blowout is a long haul situation, which works in the White House’s favor.

But what Obama has learned the hard way is that politics is an emotional event sport and he can’t dictate otherwise. He’s simply got to suck it up and learn to play the game or face the consequences, which over the last weeks has been very bad for the White House. Events can turn former buffoons into heroes through emotional means, even if Gov. Jindal is finally getting some Rudy Giuliani type criticism, because as with Rudy, who didn’t prepare for 9/11 and made devastating decisions beforehand, now Jindal has been caught not using resources, which is governor management 101.

So the media isn’t completely wrong on covering the element missing from Pres. Obama. They just don’t have the right angle.

There is a reason people now give the Obama-led federal government worse ratings on the BP blowout than during the Bush-led Katrina cleanup and it’s not because the facts support it. They do not, because there is just no comparison to Obama’s response and George W. Bush’s lack of response. But for over 30 days Pres. Obama was not being the educator in chief on what was happening, as people watched oil spill into the Gulf with no end in sight, no answers being given, with BP left on the front lines while the Obama administration played the roulette wheel of catastrophe management until oil-drenched birds started showing up to break our collective hearts and darken the image of our collective soul.

What Obama and the White House didn’t grasp early enough is that like the Wall Street crisis, the economic downturn, and many other inherited nightmares, they are on the receiving end of cumulative incompetent exhaustion and discontent people are feeling. It’s why people don’t want to vote for incumbents, but also why Republican women are breaking out.

Politicians are ultimately defined not by their slogans and successes, but by how they react in a tragedy, no matter how its delivered. In a year where people’s frustration with what’s been going on for a long time has reached a tipping point, Pres. Obama has allowed the impression to develop that he’s just another politician who doesn’t get it.

The talking head media is now simply channeling their own frustration, which voters also feel, that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party have failed to deliver on the promise that was once felt so strongly.

We’re in trouble and Obama is saying everything is going to be okay and no one believes it and for good reason.

Obama was supposed to be The One People Had Been Waiting For. Oprah said so.

Now people are pissed he isn’t, even though there was never a chance Obama could fulfill voters’ lofty expectations, because no one could. Now people are left with the impression that promise, hope and change was simply a marketing slogan and he’s only one politician doing the best he can, but it’s looking like business as usual to them, which means incompetence to make a difference leaving people overwhelmed and feeling powerless.

Soaring rhetoric is not the same as inspirational leadership in a time of crisis. People thought it would be. The hangover is brutal, especially since the disappointment comes with governmental evidence on the wings of waiting to die, oil-soaked birds, with competing news that the worst of the BP blowout may be yet to come, while BP makes promises of reducing the oil flow “to a trickle.” Seeing will be believing it, but we all can hope.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Blanche Stuns, as Women on the Right Rise

edited version cross-posted at Huffington Post

Nothing represents change in an anti-incumbent year like a woman.

Since Hillary Clinton’s historic presidential run for office, the 18 million cracks have created a political opening. Sarah Palin was the first through and she’s used her clout to make room for others. It’s just too bad the Republican women rising are against women’s individual freedoms. But make no mistake about it, the collapse of the Republican brand has allowed the ultimate outsider, women, to find a way in. As for Blanche Lincoln the new comeback kid, after the Halter scare that caused the runoff, she changed and won.

“Organized labor just flushed $10 million down the toilet.” – White House Official

The biggest winner last night was Blanche Lincoln, who was bracing for a loss, which showed in her face during her speech. William Jefferson Clinton wins too, which I know will drive some people crazy. It’s a heartbreaking loss for movement progressives who came so close, but their challenge made Blanche Lincoln a better candidate. It was a serious confrontation to elite power that had every establishment Dem quaking, which from the quote above from Ben Smith reveals they didn’t like it much. You can see Lincoln’s response in the ad after Halter forced a runoff. This battle is the stuff the makes for eventual victories. But the loss progressives didn’t expect even has Markos Moulitsas reconsidering the polling firm he uses. Some are writing Lincoln off, and she’ll have to raise a lot of money. November won’t be easy, because the energy will come from the right.

The hottest commodity is Nikki Haley, who will face a runoff on June 22. The good old boys just couldn’t take her down. Even after the slime thrown her way she still came in first and her brand image is through the roof. Dave Wiegel made a good predication last night on Twitter: Prediction: Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) will gave the SOTU response in 2011. She’s also got a presidential glimmer and being governor of a Southern state doesn’t hurt.

The anti-Nikki Haley is represented by birther queen Orly Taitz, but just imagine if she’s the Republican CA Sect. of State. It’s not decided yet (she’s losing badly right now). Thinking about Ms. Taitz playing the Katherine Harris role in 2012 should give everyone nightmares.

Carly Fiorina will be up against Barbara Boxer for the U.S. Senate. Two tough women fighting it out, this race will be one to watch.

If you’re keeping score, both Haley and Fiorina were endorsed by Sarah Palin. She can help raise money and rev up the troops, which has made for a very good 2010 for Palin. Her clout continues to matter as she uses her power to help other women rise.

Meg Whitman spent over $81M to get it done, but she’ll run against Jerry Brown for the California crown. She’s gone to the right to win the primary, so it will be interesting to see how her prior policy stance on things like immigration will be used against her.

…and what can you say about Sharon Angle, Nevada Tea Party spoiler and gift to Harry Reid? Seriously, I’ve got nothin’ on this one and my husband spent his life in Nevada. I also spent time there, so I can say that Nevadans don’t like politics as usual. I did a story during 2008 about my husband’s kids, all of whom backed Ron Paul. They’ve got a very independent western streak in the state, with Harry Reid not particularly beloved. No matter how wacky Ms. Angle sounds, I guarantee you Sen. Reid will not take anything for granted.

It’s taken a very long time but after the failures of Republican men, including Bush’s presidency, which was a big spending Administration, plus the disastrous campaign of John McCain, including his collapse on the economy, women are taking their place on the right. They’re coming from all ends of the Republican spectrum, with some of the display sure to offer awkward moments, but they are definitely energized. Republicans are seeing the rise of the female candidate, even if their politics stand in the face of women’s freedoms that we’ve fought to win. That’s something they’ll have to explain, especially with the rise of ultrasound bills across the country that demand a woman be challenged before taking care of her own body as she sees fit.

As for Democratic women rising… .. Since Hillary Clinton, well, as I’ve been writing for months, the new action has been on the right.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Election Night Countdown

UPDATE (10:56 pm): Politico, then AP, call it for Blanche Lincoln with 51%, Halter 49%. Also Orly Taitz wins nomination for CA Sect. of State. Yes, indeed, William Jefferson Clinton is still relevant.

UPDATE (10:04 pm): Big Dawg still relevant? Don’t look now, but Blanche Lincoln may pull this out. See Nate Silver.

UPDATE (9:52 pm): AP declares a runoff between Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett on June 22; Haley, despite sexist smears came in first tonight.



It’s going to be quite a night. There’s the Arkansas Senate runoff, the South Carolina, Nevada, Iowa and California gubernatorial primaries, Nevada Senate primary, South Carolina 4th, and Virginia 5th district primary for Perriello, to name a few. Chris Cilizza has more.

Poll closings begin at 7 pm eastern time, with Arkansas closing at 8:30 pm eastern. California polls don’t close until 11 pm. Nevada is at 10 pm.

Sarah Palin did a robocall for Carly, hoping to get her into the race against Sen. Boxer, which would be some fight, neither woman afraid to throw a political punch.

In the midst of this for Washington National fans, Stephen Strasburg makes his debut at around 7:00 pm. Exciting moment in baseball.

While the New Orleans Saint are raffling off a Super Bowl ring hoping to raise $1 million for the International Bird Rescue Research Center in Venice, La. Way to go, Saints!

For the big Arkansas battle, check out the local blogs here, here, here, here, and here.

Now we wait.. … What’s your election night drink tonight? If Halter wins it will be Tequila Silver shots at our place.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Is Obama & Dem Majority Making Case for Big Government or Small Government?

We’re into dueling competitive narrative territory now. However, there is a much bigger story, which goes beyond what’s being talked about now and it’s not a good one for the Democratic Party currently in power.

Democrats control the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The BP blowout makes a good case for government and the need for regulation. However, considering Democrats are supposed to be the competent ones who understand, appreciate and know how to make government function, looking at the BP blowout management isn’t exactly inspiring.

Even with full political control of Washington, Democrats are proving inept at utilizing government to control BP’s actions, being slow on the response and still not having other ideas or even a five-level task force in place to challenge BP. There are no tankers in the Gulf (which I still believe should be), which would be better than boom, which Matthew Simmons has been saying for weeks; but then again, everything he’s said on Dylan Ratigan’s show is coming to pass. As for the military option, it’s now clear that Obama nor BP has a clue how to mobilize America for this tragedy. People keep saying the military can’t plug the hole. True, which has never been my contention, but the U.S. military has the best command and control power available, with the capabilities of putting fear into any marauding corporation and their representatives who are on site just by being present.

The Democratic bungling, which began when Ken Salazar started authorizing more acreage for offshore drilling than Republicans, all under Obama’s direction, has led to the other competing narrative.

What’s the point in having a massive federal government if not even a fully controlled Democratic Washington can mobilize it or use it to advance Democratic principles?

So, in fact, Democrats are making the case for a smaller government, because if a Democratic president and Congress can’t mobilize efforts against what’s going on what’s the point of having a big government?

If we only had one competent leader who had the knowledge required and who knew how to mobilize the massive force of the feds.

The election today takes place with the backdrop of the BP blowout and the incompetence of politicians to do anything about a corporation that was allowed to drill at a depth no one should go. At least Democrats in Congress are planning to do something about that, though it could have been done by Obama on day one.

The election today has as its backdrop a Democratic president whose whole energy policy was “drill, baby, drill,” with a Congress that doesn’t have the spine to stand up to this insanity.

It comes after the Wall Street crisis, too big to fail, a stimulus that wasn’t enough, as well as a health care bill that throws people into a monopoly without choice and on demand. So already demoralized people have become even more skeptical that Democrats are any different.

The truth is that Obama came in with so much support behind him that he could have mobilized a massive green energy job push from day one. He just didn’t have the political will or the vision.

Looking at Democrats and Republicans today it appears nobody does.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Is BP’s Blowout Hitting Obama and Democrats?

Did Pres. Obama’s slow uptake on the political side of BP’s blowout cost Democrats? Well, I’d say that the catastrophe confirms what people are feeling, which is that the federal government is incompetent and so is everyone in Washington who runs it.

Gallup has new numbers that aren’t good for Democrats. The interviews were conducted between May 24-30th, a time when the crescendo of criticism coming Pres. Obama’s way was deafening.


There is no doubt that the Obama administration had Com. Thad Allen mobilized early (to reiterate, I was on the first conference call that Saturday, May 1st).

The problem was that all anyone saw was BP’s floundering, the oil pouring into the ocean, with no federal effort in sight.

There was no Administration presence, single point person, or strong visuals or efforts from the feds, which Obama is charged to lead as president. It was all BP all the time for far too long. All of this while the criticism rose from every corner, including the outbursts from James Carville, Donna Brazile and many other loyal Democrats.

The shift from a more competitive race to a Republican lead occurred the same week President Barack Obama averaged a 46% job approval rating, his lowest weekly average to date. Two structural changes in the data help explain the shift. First, while the percentage of registered voters identifying as Republicans has been consistent over the past several weeks, during the last week there was a decline in the percentage of voters identifying as Democrats and an increase in independent identifiers. – Gallup

I’d say Obama can get the lead back, but one real problem in doing so is that all summer long we may see the BP blowout catastrophe manifest along the Florida coast and maybe spread further east, via visuals of oil on shore. It could be a very slow political bleed all summer unless someone comes up with an alternate plan.

Small tankers inside the Gulf to siphon off the oil has been said to be too cumbersome a response, given all the equipment on and below the water. However, if the oil continues to pump out of the BP well it’s going to make for horrific visuals for a very long time.

It seems pretty clear that the ones who may be made to pay are Democrats. Nate Silver agrees.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Making More Independents Every Day


via CBS

It hit on “Morning Joe” this a.m. that on day 36 of the BP blowout, Obama’s EPA chief Lisa Jackson decided it might not be a good idea to go to a New York fundraiser while the Gulf Coast is being coated in oil. It hadn’t occurred to her or the Administration before yesterday? The crisis of competence continues, with the White House political machine’s reputation in shambles.

Of course, on the other side sits the Republican Party, the single biggest benefactor to big oil in the history of political parties, not to mention the leader in deregulating and emasculating federal agencies so that the gigantic federal government has employees, but no teeth.

Neither of the Big Two are worthy of trust, because they’re both too busy delegating power to corporations and Wall Street in an alliance that is bringing this country to its knees.

Dylan Ratigan says it perfectly today:

This kind of bizarre ignorance of incentives is now displayed by our current president, who often appears to think that government works best when it is subservient to corporations under even the most dubious circumstances. So far, it seems like the only entrenched power that our president is interested in fighting was the Democratic Party machine that wanted him to wait his turn back in the primaries.

    This from a man that so many hoped would be an antidote to the horrendous corporatist reign of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Nowhere is this attitude more on display than in the Gulf right now. Perhaps operating under the fear of that “if you try to actually fix something, you own it politically,” our government continues to abdicate its responsibilities in the ongoing disaster.

[...]Meanwhile, the corporation prevents tankers from cleaning up, scientists and engineers from researching, journalists from reporting and Americans from witnessing, all while the oil spill pumps into the gulf at an alarming rate for what could potentially be another 30 years before running dry.

I’m not sure what is more a sign of the times — having a Democratic White House claim that they couldn’t possible infringe on the rights of a private corporation that is destroying public water and land while a Republican Senator rightly demands a Government takeover, or Sarah Palin and Robert Gibbs having a flame war over who is more on the take from said corporation (the answer — both).

Besides James Carville today, my favorite quote comes from David Gergen. It goes like this: “If Gov. Fought WWII Like Oil Spill We’d Be Speaking German.”

However, the insult to injury was seeing Mr. Obama’s lackluster comment at Boxer’s fundraiser last night as he talked about nobody being angrier than he was over what was happening. No passion. No heart. Just words.

Neither of the Big Two political parties have shown any manner of competency in the last decade and counting of preventing or responding to the catastrophes that have hit our country. It’s why people are disgusted with both sides at a time when our great country continues to look paralyzed.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Desperation

Is there any political position John McCain wouldn’t change to further his own survival?

When you think of the anti-incumbent mood this year, especially after long time Sen. Bob Bennett’s demise, it’s clear that John McCain feels he has to do whatever it takes to hold his seat in the Senate, regardless of whether what he’s doing to accomplish it further destroys what once was a respected, if not perfect, reputation.

Put McCain up to Barry Goldwater and what you get is a paltry comparison with Goldwater at least learning a few things, especially on gay rights, while being unwilling to sell his soul.

McCain tried to tack to Goldwater’s theory of the religious right, but it cost him big in South Carolina back in 2000, a moment in political history that changed McCain forever.

“When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” – Barry Goldwater

We’re reminded of something else out of the Goldwater era, which applies to McCain and other Republicans today, including Mitt Romney, as the GOP establishment faces the wrath of the Tea Party movement.

“The election results of 1964 seemed to demonstrate Thomas Dewey’s prediction about what would happen if the parties were realigned on an ideological basis: ‘The Democrats would win every election and the Republicans would lose every election.’” – Arthur Schlesinger (quoted in “Before the Storm,” by historian Rick Perlstein)

There is little doubt today that incumbents are taking tremendous heat in the lead up to 2010, as is represented by John McCain’s craven caving to the squealing wingnuts over border issues, which cannot be solved by militarizing or fence building. The Tea Party activists on the right, most of whom are Republicans or disaffected conservative Dems, are leading politicians like McCain to move to their way of thinking for the midterm election, but come the national presidential election these choices offer less solace for the national Republican party.

As seen with Sarah Palin’s Tea Party popularity, the hard ideological right wing brand of politics can get out the vote in midterms. However, the negative bent it takes can also depress the vote, because people are far less excited about the prospects offered looking forward, which includes Democratic choices. The politicians from the big two parties from which we have to choose really offering little choice at all, though not even the Tea Party is a panacea, as Palin’s endorsement of Carly Fiorina proves.

We’re now into a Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, and Joe Sestak era of political independence, less so with Sestak though he is bucking the national party, the winds of which have Sen. John McCain careening once again to gain approval and votes. This time it’s not from the Republican establishment, but from the rag tag Tea Party rabble McCain is trying desperately to appease.

The 1964 Arthur Schlesinger ideology test won’t apply this year.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Competence

If you want to know why people are frustrated with our national government, the Obama administration gives you a case to add to what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left in their wake. It’s why people are sick to death of both political parties. The incompetence and sheer stupidity of not learning lessons and taking advice from commissions, which are forced on the American people, because Congress won’t do their jobs either.

Faisal Shahzad was put on the no-fly list at 12:30 pm ET. According to an “administration official,” Shahzad got on the plane because Emirates doesn’t refresh their system often enough, so his name wasn’t seen, but federal authorities evidently lost him before then. But because of built-in redundancy Customs and Border Protection caught the name and ordered the plane back, or so the story goes at this point.

Enter retired 9/11 commission co-chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, whose only purpose is to tell the truth about continued federal incompetence, even after recommendations have been given and plenty of time to put them into place has passed.

Hamilton reminds ABC News that “the 9/11 commission recommended that you had to have biometric evidence, documentarian evidence of people coming in and exiting” the country. “We’ve done a pretty good job on the first part of it people entering the country. But with regard to those exiting the country we simply have not been able to set up a system to deal with that and it showed in this case.”

Hamilton says “we need to have in this country a system of checking people leaving the country so that we can protect against the very sort of thing that happened here — or at least almost happened here.”

To broaden this out to a larger point, which I’ve been talking about a lot lately, the big two parties are failing this country horrifically. It’s politics over competency at every single point (see TM.com reader guyski), including where our domestic security is concerned. Politicians line up on their side to push their ideology, as well as their political bankers’ interests, whether we’re talking Wall Street, insurance companies, oil companies (BP can boatloads of cash to Obama, as did Goldman Sachs), nuclear industry (big giver to Obama), you name the corporate special interest, in lieu of what is in the public’s interest.

The big two parties are collapsing under their incompetence, corporate dependence and lack of integrity on issue after issue. It revolves around the notion that Party First is the way to go. Politicians disagreeing with this motto forced to suck it up even when they’re selling us out. Is there any better example than the “progressive movement” on this one? It’s especially true of the “pro-choice progressive caucus,” whom Nancy Pelosi, Bart Stupak and Barack Obama rendered irrelevant, because these so called “progressives” wouldn’t stand up on principle.

It’s why, even though I’d never support him, I’m thrilled to see Charlie Crist go independent. Even though it’s self-serving, because Crist wants to stay a public person in politics, it’s a sign of the desire to serve the people over party as well. Arrogance comes with politics, but service is intertwined with the bravado that leads men and women to believe they have the answers to solving problems.

The national political failings of both parties and politicians representing them are also tied into the press, who takes political sides when delivering the news, which goes for traditional and new media alike. Ben Smith has a post on this today, citing the Washington Post‘s liberal online tilt with David Weigel, Ezra Klein, and Greg Sargent; never mind that their editorial page is hard right. It’s the Post‘s tilt, as well as other online magazine’s political pandering to the powers that be, often due to the rise of access journalism coupled with monetary necessity, that is just one instance where press bias is part of the problem, not the solution. However, that’s the norm, with new media outlets, especially tiny companies like mine, being financially starved out, our futures very uncertain. That the Post is putting Newsweek on the selling block is a result of the changing press tides.

Then there is the marketing and selling of the news. If Fox News Channel can co-opt “fair and balanced” and actually believe it, with MSNBC going left as they see it, even going so far as having Keith Olbermann co-opting Edward R. Murrow’s sign off even though he hardly resembles the man’s professional prowess, with CNN faltering badly, thus talking again with CBS, as blogs line up on one political side or the other, there is hardly any room for objective reality anymore, which used to be the standard. If you don’t take a side you’re not seen.

It’s easy for me to say this, because I come from a hyper-partisan background of writing and reporting myself. I can smell bias in a hummingbird’s heartbeat. I’ve also come to the conclusion that it’s the inability to decipher the partisan doublespeak that is leading the American people to their cynicism.

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” – Thomas Jefferson

Access journalism predicated on monetary necessity in a country where politicians and leaders are beholden to globalized corporations leaves very little space to keep things right between the people and their government.

Lack of trust in government and the press has led to massive cynicism and is why voters who used to be Democrats and Republicans are going Independent, and why the Tea Party is rising up even if they don’t exactly understand why, which isn’t always a pretty reason, as the still affiliated wonder why they bothered voting these incompetent bunglers into office in the first place, wondering why it’s worth voting in 2010.

That Pres. Obama, Democrats and Republicans continue down a dead end path doesn’t surprise me. But it has made me more skeptical than ever of the big two political parties, but also the press, at a time when we need the latter to police the former in a way that was done during Nixon’s era. Because the politicians and our corporations are robbing we the people of our country.

A biased, access press, who prizes getting cozy at swanky cocktail parties, is helping them do it.

We live in an era that has rendered political ideology more important than competency. Where marketing means more than making a difference we the people can see.

We got lucky with the Times Square failed terrorist attack, primarily due to the competence of the New York City anti-terrorism infrastructure, including citizens who have experience with this horror.

We didn’t get so lucky with what looks like criminal negligence by the conglomeration of incompetence between the federal government, corporations, and political hacks who still stand today to hawk oil drilling at a moment in time when our entire Gulf coastal region may collapse because of corporate greed and political coziness with corporations that are taking this country in a direction that minimizes we the people even more.

There’s a reason people don’t believe in their government or political parties. It’s because Party First politics has led to sheer incompetence, something that manifested recently in Arizona’s reactive new law, which makes a mockery of any Cinco de Mayo celebration you may enjoy tonight.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

An Opening for Independence

Independence from the big two political machines, that is.

Every independent should be rooting for Charlie Crist. The irony that Crist couldn’t be a viable independent candidate without first being a player in one of the major two parties is the significant jumping off point, but it also provides a model that goes beyond Joe Lieberman splitting only after he lost. By ditching the Republican party early, Crist has a chance to change the political scenario for himself and Floridians, while reclaiming his own political integrity by being his own man and not beholden to ideology of any particular party.



Some call this personal expedience, because he can’t win as a Republican in the primary. That’s true to an extent, but Crist can’t win in a primary environment where the right-wing base represented by the Tea Party activists are swinging the primary off the cliff.

When your passion and life’s calling is political service, what’s a person to do, give up?

The reality is that politicians are egotists by the very nature of their profession. It takes a lot of self-confidence, mixed with self-absorption and the belief that you can change the world and lead the people, along with purpose and passion about your own ideas and intelligence when juxtaposed against the next person, to throw yourself into the arena in the first place. Why anyone is surprised that someone would then separate himself out from the pack to become “independent,” when your life’s calling is disappearing before your eyes, is beyond me.

If you believe you have the right ideas, initially attaching yourself to one of the only two vehicles available, either Republican or Democrat, once you’ve claimed a spot in the limelight, which was predicated on the belief that you and you alone can lead the people in the right direction, it’s a small step these days to declare you want to go it on your own path, with only the people to back you up.

The two national parties are bankrupt of ideas, purpose and passion, not to mention competence. They are owned by corporations, banks and special interests, with few politicians willing to step out to challenge their leadership.

Then there is the complete collapse of Congress as an institution of checks and balances. Both parties propping up the executive branch when their side is in power, with no one in Congress willing to stand up to the party bosses when they are wrong.

A while back I wrote that we are at a historic moment in politics. Independent minded voters have been growing steadily for years. What they’ve needed are candidates, especially on the national level. The Tea Party is also representative of dissatisfaction of their side of the political machine, though they are tiny fraction compared with Independent voters.

The only group not breaking out and standing up is the “progressive” wing of the political universe, the “liberal” heart of the Democratic party. That’s because they have been revealed to have no courage when it comes to standing up and telling political truth to power, allowing their message to be destroyed in the name of Democratic conservatism.

Just listen to the Democratic party leader on “judicial activism,” implying that the great courts of the 1960s and 1970s weren’t so great, while using right wing talking points to attack the greatest liberal justices in our history.

“It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically,” Mr. Obama said.

“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

He added, “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”

Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious. [...]

This is the most chilling statement a supposed Democratic president has ever made about the greatest liberal jurists in Supreme Court history. Glenn Greenwald does a masterful job today on Obama’s “imperial decree” on the subject, something he will not clarify by actually identifying the rulings he believes to be “judicial activism,” which no doubt will bring the Obama choir out in his defense, as dispatched from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It is not a mistake that the ranks of Independents are being filled in part by disaffected Democrats, many of them women.

This democratic republic was founded by individuals with ideas, not people beholden and driven by ideology alone, with the bedrock being foundational individual freedoms and self-determination for us all. It is not “judicial activism” to assure these foundational principles of our country are protected.

More and more, because of the unending failures and sell out of the big two, people have become discouraged, giving root to Tea Party people, with the largest disaffected group of voters going independent for obvious reasons.

People are looking for politicians who represent their views, which change depending on the issue, though we do expect some things to be inviolable.

Getting back to Florida, this is nothing against Mr. Kendrick Meek, the Democrat running in the Florida race.

And just to make it even more interesting, there is also a billionaire named Greene, who had Mike Tyson as a best man, and Heidi Fleiss as a guest at his home, who has also jumped in. Greene reportedly has Joe Trippi and Doug Shoen by his side. I couldn’t get through the first minute of his YouTube announcement, though maybe you can.

We simply need to shake up the big two political machines, which are ill serving we the people. I think independent challenges from former establishment politicians are the only way, no matter how long it will take, and Charlie Crist just may be the guy to provide the model to get it done.

I’d say I’m looking forward to a liberal going that route, but there is currently no evidence a politician of such courage and independent thinking even exists to break away from the conservative Democratic engine that is sucking the energy out of the progressive movement.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

2010: Campaigning from the Presidential Bubble, While Oklahoma Shackles Women



The backdrop for Obama’s video is Charlie Crist’s anticipated announcement at around 5:00 p.m. today that he’s leaving the Republican Party to run as an independent candidate. It finalizes the far right leaning Republican reality as we head into election season 2010.

But it’s Obama’s pitch that seems terribly out of place in the political climate we are now living. It’s like he was dropped in front of the camera from the presidential bubble. However, we all know Pres. Obama knows very well what’s going on. He’s just ignoring it.

As TM.com reader Joyce Arnold wrote yesterday In the News, Obama also ignored something else. No mention of gays and lesbians in the video. Whether it’s an honest omission or a slight, it’s just sloppy, especially considering that some of these very people are fighting for our country, as well as against our country to get DADT repealed.

There is just something oddly out of touch about this video.

It’s obviously trying to re-invigorate the same successful tens of thousands that came out for Barack Obama in 2008, but it’s doing so in a climate that no longer resembles where Obama began. Worst of all, it appears that the President intends to ignore this fact.

Earth to White House, this isn’t 2008 America anymore.

Oklahoma’s 19th century abortion law, vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, proves it, as the legislature overruled Henry, officially making women’s self-determination in Oklahoma dependent on the state.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion.

My pal Peter Daou has it exactly right:

The pervasive abuse of girls and women across the globe and the entrenched sexism in our society supports the argument that this is more about suppressing women’s rights than protecting new life. If men were the ones carrying babies, do you really think Oklahoma would enact such laws? Do you think doctors would be gunned down for providing a legal service? Do you think rape and incest victims would be further humiliated? For some reason, I doubt it.

In the gear up pitch from Pres. Obama, as he talks about what he inherited, there is absolutely no acknowledgment of what’s happening today across America as Tea Party people and the further unhinged right-wing mobilize against progress and everything for which Obama stands, which also includes the feud over Arizona’s immigration law, which the Administration may challenge.

The Obama video pitch is just weirdly out of sync with reality. Someone needs to pop Obama’s presidential bubble.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Tea Party, Charlie Crist, and Arizona’s ‘Illegal’ Immigrant Law

How closely should the Republican Party align itself with the Tea Party movement? That was one of the questions in National Journal’s The Hotline new media poll this week. Here’s the breakdown and my two cents on this one:

“No, but let’s hope they do, as it would reveal the utter confusion on the right. Tea Party people love their Social Security and Medicare. Republicans want to privatize programs to kill them. Besides, Bob McDonnell became Virginia governor by running undistinguished on political party, hiding his inner Tea Party persona. The far right scares people.”

Second question: Would Florida GOP Gov. Charlie Crist benefit by running for the Senate as an independent? I was an emphatic yes, but that’s obvious, as I think independents are rising due to “none of the above” preferable at the voting booth to the current crowd.

“Voters are moving to independent status in serious numbers, sick to death of both parties. Who can blame them? It’s truly shocking Crist is agonizing over this decision. The one missing party in the whole picture is traditional media, who still thinks it’s a Dem vs. GOP political world. Those days are over.”

What’s your take?

Looking into next week, I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked us about this one. The new immigration law in Arizona is really stunning. It goes along with my legalize marijuana, erase the deficit post last week, though you could add save lives to it as well. With Mexico becoming the new Columbia (Thomas Friedman might have said that first), the border states are getting hit hard.

Brewer’s decision came just hours after President Obama called the proposal “misguided.” At a naturalization ceremony for new U.S. citizens today, Obama pressed Congress to revamp federal immigration policy or face the possibility of “irresponsibility by others.”

The law, which will take effect in 90 days, will make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The measure would require migrants to produce papers verifying their status when asked to do so by a police officer, according to a story in The Arizona Republic. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Obama’s Problems Began Under Bush, Escalated Because of Health Care

I’ve been saying this for a long time, with a Pew poll now mooring the mounting discontent where it belongs. In the fall of 2008, when the financial crisis occurred. As I’ve also written, it was health care that ignited it.

The recent downward trend in trust in government began in the fall of 2008, when public satisfaction plunged amid the financial crisis.

[...] A second element is presidential politics. Trust in government is typically higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among members of the “out” party. However, Republicans’ views of government change more dramatically, depending on which party holds power, than do Democrats’. Republicans are more trusting of government when the GOP holds power than Democrats are when the Democrats are in charge.

This pattern is particularly evident in the Obama era. The president’s policies – especially the year-long effort to overhaul the health care system – have served as a lightning rod for Republicans.

I’ll address the right’s never ending and always acrimonious “distrust” of Democrats in another essay, which basically boils down to the right always trying to delegitimize Democrats when they’re in power.

But first, the other real issue that traditional media ignores is the rise of independents, which Pew has also analyzed as more Republican than Democratic, though it’s possible this is a bit premature, but their evidence does confirm a contagion of other polling that links the frustrated and generally ticked off Tea Party people with the right.

A third factor is that a particular subgroup of independents, who are financially pressed, chronically distrustful of government and who typically lean to the Republican Party, appears to be especially angry today. Pew political typology surveys in the past have labeled these individuals as “disaffecteds.” This group may explain, in part, why at least as many Republican-leaning independents (37%) as conservative Republicans (32%) say they are angry with the government. And identical percentages of Republican-leaning independents and conservative Republicans (53% each) say they agree with the Tea Party movement.

We’ve got a perfect storm brewing for November, with few openings left for Democrats in Congress, an institution that just about all likely voters loathe.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Misreading the American Spirit

One of the reasons the Obama-Pelosi health care bill is so unpalatable is that it runs counter to something deeply ingrained in our culture and fiber of our country. For all the heart we have as a country, which is why helping the most afflicted among us has worked through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even unemployment and other popular government programs, Americans in general are a cantankerously unbridled lot. We may all hail from immigrant ancestors, but we fled to be free. There isn’t anything in our makeup that renders us malleable as a mass of conformists, especially when we’re confused. In fact, we rebel when we’re lumped together, which includes when we’re told what to do, can or can’t have or buy. There is a reason Democrats lost out on the gun issue and it’s not because people don’t want sensible gun laws.

The video here of “Hardball,” compliments of conservative Townhall, is the only video I’ve found with a short excerpt of the exchange between Matthews and David Corn. Frankly, I seldom watch “Hardball” anymore, but came upon the health care back and forth that’s worth parsing. It illustrates that Matthews is most times completely wrong on his political analysis these days.

I think the progressives, for all their power on the blogosphere, have not done a positive case for the advantages of some kind of social state.Chris Matthews

To which David Corn responded:

CORN: Well, Obama hasn‘t, either. He‘s—you know, he‘s made this… … a big—you know, a better business issue.

Matthews loves to target “the blogsophere,” lumping your sister’s blog in with the pros, as if we all belong to the same monolithic organization. But also because like so many others he ignores the power of new media, preferring to disparage his competition and critics. Matthews is particularly disrespectful of movement progressives, those of you who work diligently as activists to make things happen. The thing he gets very wrong on the subject of health care is that it wasn’t “the blogosphere” who screwed up making “a positive case for the advantages of some kind of social state,” though this soundbite does encapsulize the Democratic messaging problem in a nutshell.

It was Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the entire progressive congressional delegation who blew it. They produced a big bad bill with tax increases that eventually hit the middle class pretty hard, demand Americans buy a product through a rigged system that has no competition, with insurance companies winning the customer lottery, as Americans lose choices, which goes double for women, and freedom to control something incredibly personal. As time goes by these things get worse, though Obama won’t be around when it hits the fan, and neither will others who put us in this mess.

The Democrats had a choice to do something simpler, easier to understand and implement, which could have gone into effect sooner, with a quicker impact on Americans that would have been immediately understood and felt. But the Obama White House and the Democratic elite, including the entire progressive caucus, didn’t want to listen to Dr. Howard Dean and fight for what was right. Expanding Medicare would have been the perfect beginning, while also rendering no argument over abortion, all of which Democrats botched while also moving the party to the right. People get Medicare, which is a monumentally popular program.

Instead, Democrats have created a health care monstrosity, the marketing of which they botched very badly, all the while the movement progressives, those people Chris Matthews is disparaging, kept warning the Democratic Party elite that without a public option or Medicare buy-in we’d all be trouble.

The leadership of the Democratic party missed the most fundamental reading of the people’s mood, but also the very thread of who we are as a country. We believe government has an important function, including regulating industry, because the greedy won’t do it themselves; providing for those who can’t, including the elderly whom we owe, etc. However, when a political party starts telling us what we must buy, as Democrats did with a mandate in a system without competition, even the most liberal rebel.

Matthews got the target wrong, because movement progressives warned the Democratic elite, with groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, even the AFL-CIO accepting onerous taxes on the middle class, while women’s groups allowed the Democratic party to begin the carve out of reproductive coverage, but he did pinpoint a Democratic problem that is real.

The monstrous health care bill comes at a time when the public is in no mood for the people they want to fire to impose more rules on them.

Americans don’t have a problem with governmental oversight and programs that help us out, regulations and looking out for the people. We do, however, have a real issue with more monstrous bureaucracy put in place by politicians that benefits insurance and drug companies, who are also forcing us to buy what these companies are selling, making us guinea pigs to corporations whose whole existence is profit, not what’s good for the people.

Americans love sharing, helping the less fortunate, as the health care bill does, but even as the wealthy gets taxed, the middle class is getting squeezed. Maybe that’s why we’re getting news from Obama’s pet pundit, Richard Wolf, that the rich are about to get hit, while the middle class get some help.

Democrats were right to tackle health care, but they misread the American mood by a mile. What’s worse is there is nothing (small-d) democratic about the big bad bill they wrote, pushed and passed.

The Democratic misreading of the American mood has awakened the inner rebel that was instrumental in founding this country in the first place, and I’m not just talking about the Tea Party. Independents are now the fastest growing political group in this country, with Democrats making more of them since Pres. Obama came into office than anyone could have possibly imagined.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Pakistan, and the Interventionist Question

[...] The assault this morning is part of a wave of violence perpetrated by brutal extremists who seek to undermine Pakistan’s democracy and sow fear and discord. The Pakistani people have suffered grievous losses, but they are standing firm in the face of this intimidation — and the United States stands with them. … – Sect. Clinton

As we get closer to August and our commitment to pull back forces in Iraq, our involvement in the region of Afghanistan – Pakistan will come into view. In the last election cycle we saw the rise of Ron Paul and his non-interventionist stance, something neocons abhor, with preemption coupled with tax cuts having ruined Republicanism. As Tea Party members raise the roof on spending in 2010, it makes you wonder if they will join the non-interventionist political streak that began rising through Ron Paul’s candidacy, taking it forward to 2012. It’s not where Republicans want to go, but what have they got left? Meanwhile, the Democrats are deeply sunk into Afghanistan – Pakistan, with the region roiling right now.

The U.S. consulate in Peshawar was attacked today. So, it must be April, for the god of war is on a rampage. Via Bloomberg News:

Taliban guerrillas attacked the U.S. consulate in Peshawar with bombs and gunfire in the heaviest assault on an American diplomatic mission in Pakistan since 1979.

Militants exploded nearly simultaneous bombs at paramilitary police posts guarding roads to the complex, and detonated a larger bomb that damaged the consulate and killed two of its Pakistani security guards. No U.S. casualties were reported.

Guerrillas battled police in “a very coordinated, commando-style attack that involved many people,” said Imtiaz Gul, executive director of Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, the capital. After 14 months of escalated U.S. and Pakistani attacks that have forced the country’s Taliban out of several of their strongholds, violence today “showed that it will take many years to undermine the guerrillas’ capacities,” Gul said by phone. [...]


Graphic via the New York Times.

The graphic above from the New York Times focuses on U.S. drones hitting Pakistan, which the article goes on to delineate in harrowing specifics.

The strikes have become so ferocious, “It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders,” said the militant, who is a mid-ranking fighter associated with the insurgent network headed by Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. By “everyone” he meant rank-and-file fighters, though civilians are being killed, too. …

[...] “Definitely Haqqani is under a lot of pressure,” the militant said. “He has lost commanders, a brother and other family members.”

While unpopular among the Pakistani public, the drone strikes have become a weapon of choice for the Obama administration after the Pakistani Army rebuffed pleas to mount a ground offensive in North Waziristan to take on the militants who use the area to strike at American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. …

Two of the government supporters said they knew of civilians, including friends, who had been killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, they said, they are prepared to sacrifice the civilians if it means North Waziristan will be rid of the militants, in particular the Arabs.

“On balance, the drones may have killed 100, 200, 500 civilians,” said one of the men. “If you look at the other guys, the Arabs and the kidnappings and the targeted killings, I would go for the drones.”

The part in bold above is tucked into this article, bit is a striking bit of truth. The substance of which reminds me of what SecDef Gates said last year about our presence inside Pakistan. From an interview Gates did with Fareed Zakaria back in May, 2009, which I covered:

GATES: They don’t like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that. But we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation. I think that we have been willing to do that for quite some time.

Zakaria: Will there be American military advisers in Pakistan now training the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that remains to be seen. There are some very small number now. But I think it will depend on how the situation develops and the views of the Pakistani government. I would just say we are prepared to provide whatever help in developing this counterinsurgency capability to the Pakistanis that we possibly can. But it’s their country, and they’re sovereign, and we’ll let them dictate the rules.

We’ll likely be digging down into this region for some time to come, regardless of Obama’s pledge to remove resources in Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Pakistan is quite a different beast than Afghanistan, not the least of it being it’s a nuclear state.

No doubt Bush-Cheney broke Iraq, so we had to stay to fix it; but that goes the same for Afghanistan, which actually goes back to Bill Casey and the Reagan era (though Carter and Zbig authorized the first cash).

Interestingly, if the Tea Party’s so called populist conservatism is taken beyond domestic issue to include thinking about national security, you have to wonder if they’ll stay true to fiscal conservatism, or turn tail and run back to Bush Republicanism and support the industrial military complex of Cheneyism.

As we look forward to 2012, if there is a credible challenge to the two parties who traditionally duke it out, no matter how unlikely it is that an outsider candidacy could win, it would be a positive development if there was a continuing discussion about how we get enmeshed in countries so deeply, spending billions of dollars we have to borrow. It’s quite possible that Afghanistan is the last we’ll see of this type of U.S. interventionism with so many troops at play. A smarter, smaller and more surgical attitude is likely on the horizon.

Then the question becomes what leader can make the Pentagon culture adapt, and if people rising up will force the change, or if it will be our teetering financial deficit that will finally bring it to a halt.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Winston Group & Gallup Stack Polls for Tea Party

–updated–

Polling is a powerful tool, so it’s important to let the experts do the job. However, when you have The Hill trumpeting the latest polling by the Winston Group, as well as Gallup labeling a group of Tea Party activists “fairly mainstream” when they tilt over 20 percentage points hard right, which I’ll explain in a minute, you’ll pardon me if I demure. It’s not exactly exhuming the Pumas, it’s worse. But first the rhetorical data from The Hill:

Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.

The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal. [...] (emphasis added)

It’s classic that The Hill calls the Winston Group “Republican-leaning.” They go on to quote David Winston: “It’s a good sample size. … It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”

Who is David Winston?

President, The Winston Group

Career Background

Director, Strategic Information–Republican National Committee; Senior Fellow for Statistical Policy Analysis–The Heritage Foundation; Director of Planning, Speaker’s Office, U.S. House of Representatives; Polling Editor–PollTrack of PolitcsNow–former political Web site of ABC, Washington Post, and National Journal; President, The Winston Group, a GOP polling firm.

Know your source.

Unfortunately, people rarely look further than the numbers or the political tale being spun.

Gallup has been caught notoriously over-sampling Republicans in the past. Considering that, it’s still interesting to look at some of the data compiled. Tea Party members mostly have no college or some college, though one should consider all of the blue collar workers with trades and craft talents without whom this country would fall apart. Most Tea Party members are employed and also white, which we’ve seen in other polling. The one number that is extraordinary and should be a wake up for both parties is that 34% are in the 30-49 years-old age group. Meaning they’re going to be in the voting pool for a very long time and they’re disaffected with politicians of both big parties.

All in the Gallup poll, Tea Party members are 87% against the Obama-Pelosi health care bill, 37% above the national average; with 65% also being “pro (selective) life,” which is close to 20% higher than the national average.

Gallup calls this overwhelmingly rightward tilt “fairly mainstream.” That conclusion comes with very powerful spin, which certainly isn’t neutral by anyone’s objective standard.

To add a word about the Rasmussen poll, one part of it seems clear, while other parts reveal a general lack of understanding about Tea Party views. For instance, even with people who are not focused on women’s issues, Americans across the spectrum support Roe v. Wade, which Tea Party members do not, something that isn’t fully understood, because the media is squeamish on this issue, forever tilting against women’s rights issues. With the LA Times also falling for today’s spin on the Winston Group and Gallop’s polling, it’s no wonder people are confused, even uninformed about the rightward tilt of Tea Party members. However, the Tea Party PR about taking on the current political power in Washington clearly resonates. There is damning information that the Obama White House I’m sure is finding very hard to digest.

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

If you look at other polling since the health care bill passed, it’s safe to posit that the health care process, as well as the legislation itself, is where these numbers likely originate.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

CNN Exhumes Puma for Tea Party Story

Shannon Travis, a “CNN Political Producer,” has done a story with the headline: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party. It reads, in part:

They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he’s a “phenomenal speaker.” Another who said she was a “knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal.”

These two women are not alone.

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party — a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it’s not formally aligned with the Republican Party. [...]

As I’ve written, there are many, many disgruntled Democrats and Independents, but they are not joining the Tea Party in any numbers. Trying to concoct a story that says otherwise through a silly and hyperbolic headline and an interview with a couple of people strains credulity. Remarkably, inside the article itself it says that only 4% of Tea Party members are Democrats, the rest Republicans, though I even find that number high. What about Independents?

Which brings me to another issue, wondering when traditional media and others are going to give full voice to Independents? This is especially important since their numbers are growing faster than both Dems and Republicans.

And by the way, even those people who are infuriated, including dozens who have emailed me, none have said they wish they’d voted for McCain-Palin. So, the one person in the CNN piece who said she “regrets voting for Barack Obama,” well, she’s in a class all her own; one that rekindles the unhinged fringe brand from 2008.

UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. Soon after I wrote this post a response was posted on my Facebook page. Puma didn’t die, they’re “morphing.”

“we never passed away, we’re just morphing. some to tea party’s, some waiting for the democrats to be the party they once were, some independent until further notice.” – Amy Michelle Petunia

Read full story · Comments { 121 }

The Health Care Glow is Going… Going…

Not quite gone, but… Democrats have serious messaging challenges.

Howard Fineman, as insider as it comes, but also someone who pontificated about the importance of health care to Obama and Democrats, is getting a helping of humble pie, which is reportedly being delivered by a Democrat. Well, actually he’s choking on it, but we won’t be too hard on Howard, as he’s not alone, but also because it was obviously painful to write his post. Talking about Democratic fortunes and a potential whupping at the polls coming in November, Mr. Fineman asks a couple of questions in his column, including “it’s not clear why they will change much between now and November,” But there’s a better question: Just how and what will Democrats say about explain health care to change the perception? From Fineman:

A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

The delayed goodies is the biggest problem, especially when you have such an outlay for the poor, and absolutely no competition to keep insurance companies from hiking rates to the sky.

Howard better be careful or he won’t get invited back on “Countdown.”

The good news is that new Gallup numbers show that people think the “overall health of Americans” will go up because of the Democratic bill, but also that a small majority think health care coverage will “get better.” As for costs, quality, and the deficit, Democrats are in real trouble, including on “your family” perceptions, which likely goes beyond the bill itself to the Democratic brand of “big government health care plan” labeling during economic challenges when populism is more popular. From Gallup:

Throughout Fineman’s piece he tries to deliver the bad news softly, because he knows it’s not popular to rain on the Democratic health care parade.

Fineman: I say this even though I was one of those who always said that Obama would get a bill passed…

Fineman again: Some polling experts suggest Rasmussen’s “house effect” tilts slightly conservative…

Fineman finally: The first week of salesmanship by the Democrats and the president hasn’t done any good…

The bill has passed, which in political terms for Obama is better than if it had failed, however, that’s quite different from what helps Democrats in Congress during a year of the mob.

Obamacare gives 32 million access to health care, though that doesn’t mean people can afford it; with the Medicaid expansion particularly important and the only cover provided to vote for it (as far as I’m concerned). I always believed the pre-existing condition language would be seductive, but too expensive in the long run for most people, because the rates will be raised until… The compromises on women’s rights, well…

Fineman also writes the Administration’s current plan: They’re content, for now, to focus on solidifying their Democratic base.

Someone sometime somewhere is gong to have to disassemble this talking point, which isn’t nearly as clear as traditional media and new media insiders pretend.

Many remain hungover from the rotgut health care high, of which Fineman’s Democrat is one.

There was a simple calculus Democrats flunked. The Keep It Simple, Stupid rule of politics. They had a choice and chance to do it that way, but opted for the convoluted, which in political terms translates to bad news, because when government programs get too hard to explain, people other than your base bolt.

With 61% believing that the deficit will get worse, according to Gallup, opposed to 23% get better, and 14% stay the same, the latest numbers on the deficit reveal why independents just aren’t going to buy what has been done, which they will attach to Democrats this November.

Of course, this won’t affect Pres. Obama.

But if Democrats can’t change the health care narrative before November there’s a very good reason to bet that he won’t have Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fight his congressional battles for him anymore.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }