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 | Joe Biden

Pres. Obama Knew Firestorm Was Coming on Contraception Mandate

By on 09 February 2012

“… I think women should be deacons as well as men. …But if the federal government, if the Justice Department offers a mandate ordering Southern Baptists to make women deacons, I would be the first to say get the hell out of our business.” – Joe Scarborough (9 February)

That quote tells you all you need to know about this debate.

Scarborough’s quote above is a good example of the disingenuous nature of the argument being made by religious conservatives. It is one of the most preposterous falsehoods said yet. That Joe Scarborough chose to say it and then defend it reveals how low Republicans will go to make a religious point even if it’s false.

If the feds tried to tell the Episcopal Church they couldn’t be spiritually feminist, standing up against the misogyny in other churches that bothers no one, I’d be the first to say get the hell out of our business.

The Obama administration has let this play out all week and it will conclude tomorrow with the backdrop of the CPAC conference, when Santorum, Romney and Gingrich give their speeches.

“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.” Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.” – The Hill

Pretty bad? Anyone supporting the decision was put in the position of having not only to do White House education on the issue and the constitutionality of it, but damage control on male “60-something pundits” blowing a gasket across cable.

Nicely played, team Obama. It’s political malpractice of the first order. Somewhere Rahm Emanuel is shaking his head.

Pres. Obama also was warned what was coming, which has been reported by Bloomberg, who broke the tick tock, then Jake Tapper and others following.

This is also no longer about contraception, abortion or even a wider rule on religious exclusion. It’s also become about the Affordable Care Act and the allies Pres. Obama had by his side who now feel betrayed. That’s the thumb on the scale as we count down to the compromise.

TPM has a classic headline, with a picture of Pres. Obama that’s unintentionally priceless: Will Dems Shoot Themselves In The Foot On Contraception? I can only assume they’re being ironic or rhetorical.

V.P. Joe Biden and Bill Daley were among the concerned Catholics inside the White House that warned Pres. Obama about what has come to pass this week. I’ve not written about the roll-out, because anyone who thinks this was going to be easy any way the Administration did it hasn’t been paying attention to Republicans lately. Chuck Todd and Mark Halperin opined today that Pres. Obama needs to make the case, which shows you how little the elite news media knows about him. The fact that we haven’t seen Pres. Obama, which I never expected we would on something this electric, is that he has no intention of putting his personal capital behind Administration policy that is in the works of being reversed.

Therein lies the entire issue with Pres. Obama’s presidency. Not shoring up allies in Congress, then using pins and tape at the end of a process to get a second or third version of the legislation you want over the finished line. He’s got no allies, except women in Congress who remain a minority. I have no idea how Obama and his team, especially Valeria Jarrett, concluded he could announce something so sweeping, politically important, as well as a boon to to women, especially hourly wage employees, without knowing who had his back, but also a political strategy to lay it out.

This policy required great theater. Women ready to announce it, religious groups among them, Democratic senators and representatives standing ready to hit the airwaves for a policy they supported.

The stories are ricocheting now, as Friday looms and the Sunday shows approach, which will certainly feature a cavalcade of criticism, even as something is frantically being cobbled together. A conclusion needs to be announced so on Sunday everyone can nod their heads, criticize the initial decision, then smile approvingly that Pres. Obama’s compromise isn’t caving to pressures from the right. It never is, right?

That the Susan G. Komen foundation figured out how to right a PR disaster faster than the Obama White House is embarrassing.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Hillary and Joe, Condi vs. Joe

By 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 }

Obama the ‘Conservative’, Romney and Pondering Chris Christie

By on 26 December 2011

photo by Pete Souza

Everyone is looking to 2012 in this post-Christmas, eve of the New Year week.

When you look at Iowa and Ron Paul’s power in that state, juxtaposed against his newsletter bigotry, it gives new meaning to what it takes to get nominated in the Republican primary fight and why in the Obama era Democrats are the real conservatives.

E.J. Dionne labels Pres. Obama “the conservative,” something I’ve been writing for 3 years now, though without a hint of irony:

Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went. And here’s the irony: By raising the stakes of 2012 so high, Republicans will be playing into Obama’s hands. The GOP might well win a referendum on the state of the economy. But if this is instead a larger-scale referendum on whether government should be “inconsequential,” Republicans will find the consequences to be very disappointing.

Pres. Obama has been moving our country’s politics and policies rightward for his entire first term.

When compared against Romney versus someone like Ron Paul or the character challenged Newt Gingrich, you can argue there’s a fight over American conservatism worth having in 2012. It will appeal to Obama fans trying to convince 2008 voters to come home again, which will work with the majority of Democrats, as it always does.

What won’t happen next year is a debate on progressive policy, at least not within the big two parties, which is really the story of 2012. Political austerity has hit the U.S., with a dryness to ideas in both Democratic and Republican ranks, which is one reason outsiders are daring to tread, even though they can’t really compete due to money.

What Dionne gets wrong is how he couches the 2012 election. He posits that Republicans will make 2012 a referendum on the economy. If they do they truly are dumber than a bag of rocks, which they may be; after all, Herman Cain was once leading the pack, which doesn’t say much for GOP primary voters.

If Romney prevails he should bolster his nomination with a Chris Christie vice presidential pick, then turn the campaign to the only way to have a chance of beating Obama in 2012.

Republicans must make the election a referendum on Pres. Barack Obama. People like him very much, but few think the country is going in the right direction. So, Republicans need to make the case that Obama doesn’t need four years to get the job done, because four more years will –fill in the blank with your tragedy du jour–.

Running on “a larger-scale referendum on government” is suicide for Republicans. In 2012, it’s got to be about Pres. Obama, his style of leadership and his stewardship of American competitiveness. It’s the only way they have even a remote chance of winning.

Pres. Obama, with all his faults, remains a formidable campaigner. What needs to happen to beat him is a tear down operation from Republicans, aided by someone blunt, un-Mitt like and with the conservative cred to rally the right. With Chris Christie on a Romney ballot Republicans would at least be hedging their bets if they lose, by setting up a politician who is the anti-Obama, which will be needed if the President wins a second term, still a 50-50 proposition.

Romney-Christie versus Obama-Biden is a worthy match-up. Add in the outsiders that make it on to ballots, the lesser of two evils and hold your nose choices may not become a voter cage of self-defeating political irrelevancy.

Because if it’s just between Republicans and Democrats, that’s really not much of a choice at all. A political race to the conservative bottom will only depress voters and turn out, mimicking what happened with Clinton v. Dole in 1996.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

V.P. Joe Biden Gives a Stemwinder After Blasting ‘Zero Credibility’ Republicans

By on 29 October 2011

Remember who we are…

From a whisper to a rallying cry, V.P. Joe Biden reveals how it’s done. Not because of just the words, but because you believe the man who’s saying it. He’s the exact vice president Barack Obama needs, providing the perfect emotional connection to issues, not just professorial meanderings on a theme.

GOP getting in way of change, Biden tells Democrats, teachers union

Paraphrasing President Franklin Roosevelt’s attacks on his Republican critics in the 1930s, Biden belittled House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate President Mitch McConnell as “a beautiful rhythm of obstructionists, Boehner, Cantor and Mitch.”

Biden accused Republicans of creating the very budget deficits that they campaign against, and of not understanding that their tax-cuts proposals and vow to kill health-care reform would make the budget situation worse.

“That’s what I find absolutely bizarre: Republicans moralizing about deficits. That’s like an arsonist moralizing about fire safety,” he said. “These guys have zero credibility.”

[...] Biden said Republicans had sold the public the message that teachers and their union are responsible for bad schools.

“Folks, this is one of the biggest scams in modern American history,” he said. “They’re using you to launch the most direct assault on labor, not just in my lifetime, but since the ’20s.”

Go get ‘em, Joe.

Video via Mark Halperin’s “Biden Indicts Every Republican Leader in America.”

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Over to you, Maxine.

By on 26 September 2011

“And he never would say that to the gay and lesbian community who really pushed him on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Or even in a speech to AIPAC, he would never say to the Jewish community ‘stop complaining’ about Israel.” – Maxine Waters: Obama remarks ‘curious’

I guess Pres. Obama feels tough love to his base is the ticket, expecting one of V.P. Joe Biden’s favorite lines to do the rest of the work (from the pool report): “Don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative.”

Segue to John Aravosis: Yes, that’s the problem. Too many of us mistook Barack Obama for God.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Biden on Point, while Republicans Balk at ‘Professor Obama’s lectures’

By on 02 August 2011

(Official White House Photo by Sharon Farmer)

It always comes down to relationships and Pres. Obama just doesn’t have them. Joe does.

An interesting back story put together by Politico’s Glenn Thrush, Carrie Budoff Brown, Manu Raju and John Breshnahan.

[...] With the talks going nowhere Saturday morning, the White House made “our last play,” according to a senior administration official, calling on Biden’s long-time connection to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). [...]

McConnell wanted to negotiate primarily with Biden, concerned that other Democrats, especially Obama, would prove to be less trustworthy bargaining partners.

“Biden’s the only guy with real negotiating authority, and [McConnell] knows that his word is good,” said a senior GOP staffer close to the talks. “He was a key to the deal.”

… GOP House staffers were burnt out after months of fruitless meetings at the White House that they had taken to calling “joke meetings” or worse still, “Professor Obama’s lectures.”

[...] “There was nothing these far-right guys would say yes to,” said a leadership aide close to the talks. “It became clear that they were going to be intransigent no matter what.” …

Whether it’s been Afghanistan and Pakistan or the latest debt ceiling talks, nobody has turned out to be more valuable to Pres. Obama than Vice President Joe Biden.

…notwithstanding the… um… uncomfortable moments that arise.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Buying Time for the White House, Reid Postpones Vote Until Sunday 1 pm

By on 30 July 2011

“Tell your henchman to stop saying nice things about me,” McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told Reid earlier this week, according to people familiar with the conversation. “It hurts me.” Even as he’s sought to project immovable unity with House Speaker John Boehner, the prospects for an eleventh-hour deal rest largely on McConnell’s shoulders. For weeks, he’s kept an open line of communication with Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he struck a deal with in December to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and he heard from President Barack Obama on Saturday, too. In the meantime, he’s been trying to keep anxious Republican senators at bay. – Mitch McConnell’s moment: Debt ceiling deal maker or deal breaker?

All eyes are on Sen. Mitch McConnell, since he “conceded” the point that no deal can happen without Pres. Obama, who is now fully engaged in the final stage. McConnell is also Speaker Boehner’s lifeline, with the letter signed by 43 Republican senators saying Reid’s bill is dead quid pro quo for Reid’s letter on the Boehner bill.

The details of what’s going on between McConnell and Boehner are being kept among a select few. Let’s face it though, McConnell cannot be trusted by Democrats or the White House, a point that is close to irrelevant at this late moment, which is exactly why McConnell waited so long to get involved. He wants to force Pres. Obama into a situation where he feels he has no choice but to make deals no Democrat should make.

So, McConnell and Biden are talking, while anyone watching this spectacle can see Reid and McConnell are not.

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s original plan is now part of the Reid bill, with the triggers at issue on how to force a second round of budget cuts if the bicameral congressional committee being concocted to work on the austerity plan can’t come to an agreement. As Politico and other outlets are reporting, many Democrats believe McConnell is pushing for the second round as a set up for the inevitable and planned breakdown of any committee, so he can get more cuts upon failure. Republicans also want to make Social Security part of their triggers, which went over with a thud, with Chuck Todd reporting there are other triggers beyond entitlements.

Democrats want the trigger to include tax increases, but that’s a line House Republicans won’t cross, so it all depends on finding moderate Republic—, yeah right. Only four senators refused to sign McConnell’s letter stating Republicans intend to vote down Reid’s bill, a vote which was scheduled for 1:00 a.m. Sunday, but that was moved because Sen. Reid was told the White House talks are progressing.

God only knows what that means.

The target is $1.6 – $1.8 million in cuts before year’s end.

[...] The Democrats bigger worry is Boehner, who shows signs of simply running-out-the-clock, playing hard-to-get with Obama and hoping the White House will give into his demands. The speaker and McConnell are in regular contact, but having pushed the fight this far, the GOP has reason to fear it will lose support from its traditional business allies if there isn’t more progress before markets open Monday, one day before the threat of default. – GOP leaders ‘fully engaged’ with W.H., but Dems skeptical on debt deal

No doubt you’re sick to death of reading this from me, but the 14th Amendment remains a shot for Pres. Obama, regardless of the legal imbroglio that would follow. Because what people keep forgetting in all their prognostications is that Pres. Obama simply cannot allow the U.S. to default. One can only guess the fight that would ensue over which House Republican would serve up impeachment if it happened.

With the tension building and the last moment approaching, as McConnell bet on all along, which is why he offered up his devious plan in the first place, the bigger worry for Democrats is that Pres. Obama will offer any number of compromises to stave off a dismal Monday on Wall Street.

So, the question is how much further to the right will the McConnell-Boehner-Reid bill have to go before the White House cries “uncle”? …and will House Democrats balk for the first time and channel their own inner Tea Party rage if what comes back to the House is political poison on entitlements?

The painful negotiations to resolve the crisis have caught the attention of troops in Afghanistan, where Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quizzed repeatedly on Saturday by soldiers and Marines worried about their paychecks. In Kandahar and Helmand Provinces, Admiral Mullen said it remained uncertain where money would be found if the government defaulted. Regardless of budget talks in Washington, the mission for American troops in Afghanistan would not halt, he said. – New York Times

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Queer Talk: “Self-evident truths” about equality vs. transgender reality

By on 02 July 2011

Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose weekly column “Queer Talk” appears on Saturday.

I found out I know someone who attended the June 30, Pride Reception at the White House. Marisa Richmond, Ph.D., is one of the people I think about when considering grassroots activism. Her many years of work at the local level, in Nashville, TN, are also filled with work at the state and national levels. Sometimes I’m too quick with the “Insider & Access” generalization, applied to DC advocacy work. I know better, because I know Marisa, and others like her, whose consistent work toward LGBT equality isn’t about gaining an “elite” status, but about gaining equality.

Marisa does this work in multiple ways, including as president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, Secretary of the National Center for Transgender Equality, and at large board member of Davidson County (TN) Democratic Women. She was a member of the Transgender Delegate Caucus at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. That’s just a sampling, but it should give one “this is what an activist looks like” picture.

Before listening to Marisa, some context.

Studies consistently show that transgender individuals are the targets of discrimination far more frequently than anyone else in the LGBT communities. For example, in February of this year, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality released “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.”

The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY begins:

This study brings to light what is both patently obvious and far too often dismissed from the human rights agenda. Transgender and gender non-conforming people face injustice at every turn: in childhood homes, in school systems that promise to shelter and educate, in harsh and exclusionary workplaces, at the grocery store, the hotel front desk, in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms, before judges and at the hands of landlords, police officers, health care workers and other service providers.

The study provides stories, not just statistics. One recent story comes by way of a June 23, 2011 article by Eliza Gray, “Transitions: What will it take for America to accept transgender people for who they really are?” :

On April 18, a transgender woman named Chrissy Lee Polis went to the women’s bathroom in a Baltimore County McDonald’s. When she came out, two teenage girls approached and spat in her face. Then they threw her to the floor and started kicking her in the head. As a crowd of customers watched, Polis tried to stand up, but the girls dragged her by her hair across the restaurant, ripping the earrings out of her ears. The last thing Polis remembers, before she had a seizure, was spitting blood on the restaurant door. The incident made national news—not because this sort of violence against transgender people is unusual, but because a McDonald’s employee recorded the beating on his cell phone and posted the video on YouTube.

That a member of the transgender communities was at the WH Pride reception is obviously significant. That there is much more work to be done is just as obvious.

And so, from Marisa (with her permission), via a July 1 e-mailing of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition,“The Dichotomy of Transgender Lives”:

This week, two events have reminded us of the dichotomy of the lives of transgender Americans.

On Wednesday, I had the honor and privilege of being one of several hundred who attended the LGBT Pride Reception at the White House. Just prior to the public remarks made by the President of the United States, I was one of 13 attendees, and the only transgender representative, who was ushered in the Diplomatic Reception Room for a personal meeting with President Barack Obama. After our private meeting and the President’s public speech in the East Room, I also got to meet and chat briefly with Vice President Joe Biden.

While I was in the White House talking with the two highest ranking officials of the United States government on behalf of the transgender community, back in Nashville, a local transwoman named Forresta Bee was speaking up about a reported transphobic incident.

According to Ms. Bee, she was at the All-White Affair at LP Field (home of the TN Titans) on June 4, when 101.1 The Beat Jamz DJ Dolewite, of the weeknight radio show Dolewite & Scooby, requested her removal from the makeshift dance floor.

‘Dolewite invited everyone on stage to dance (after the fashion show),’ she says. ‘Everybody was taking pictures and doing videos. The next thing you know, he was saying ‘If you don’t get your Amazon, Shaquille O’ Neal-looking (expletive) off the stage, you better now.’ Then some heavyset guy was tugging my arm and telling me to get off the stage. …’

The incident reported by Ms. Bee occurred just one day after Tracy Morgan’s highly publicized rant at the Ryman Auditorium, also in Nashville.
When several LGBT community leaders met with Mr. Morgan on June 21, I pointed out the problems of harassment and violence against transpeople. …

I concluded my remarks that day by saying that transphobia and homophobia plagues many in the African-American community, and, thus, African-American leaders and spokespeople have a responsibility to stand against bigotry, not make fun of it.

So, at a time when an African-American transgender activist from Nashville got to shake hands and talk with the nation’s first African-American President, another African-American transwoman …, also from Nashville, was standing up for respect and dignity from her own community after being insulted, and made to feel vulnerable and humiliated, at an event she paid to attend.

As we gather together this weekend to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence with those inspirational words ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,’ let us not forget that not all Americans are yet truly equal.

The Transgender community is making progress, but serious challenges remain, and that is why the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition exists to do the work we do.

Marisa is among the LGBT activists who really can take a local and state, grassroots level knowledge and activism, to DC. And she, and activists like her, from across issues and concerns, help provide the much needed accountability in the fight toward making equality “evident” in fact, and not just in words.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Republicans have Obama’s Economic Number

By on 30 June 2011

“I thought he was a dick yesterday,” Halperin, who also is a senior political analyst for MSNBC, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference. – Mark Halperin apologizes for Obama gaffe


If a Democratic president does not have as a foundation for his economic platform that taxes and revenue increases in a recession are fundamental to getting out of it, much more so than spending cuts, with Republicans knowing that president is more on their side of the economic scale than the historic underpinnings of his own party, that Democratic president, aka Barack Obama, is done for from the start. Obama telegraphed this long ago.

Ezra Klein wrote yesterday: “Neither side is going to give in the face of purely rhetorical salvos.”

Klein gets it so wrong it’s hard to imagine anyone being this off base on the politics of it. Republicans on spending cuts is not a “purely rhetorical salvo,” but unfortunately, Pres. Obama on taxes and revenue increases is and the Republicans know it.

This is the entire problem, the Republicans have economic game, but Pres. Obama does not, because everyone knows he will give in at the end, because he instructed V.P. Joe Biden to serve up spending cuts as an act of good faith from the start and before getting equal revenue increases in exchange.

What’s been wrong from the start is that Pres. Obama hasn’t made the case for taxes as a good, before offering up cuts so that Democrats are giving more than they’re getting from Republicans as a political baseline. What’s been wrong from the start is that Pres. Obama gave in on economic message a long time ago, starting with a puny stimulus, but also by ceding territory to Republicans on the entire argument on economics.

Greg Sargent wrote to me via Twitter, then in a post: “He was clearly out to pick a major public fight with Republicans over tax cuts for the rich.”

This puts the very best possible spin on Obama’s news conference yesterday. This supposed “major public fight” also comes way too late and is more show boating than anything else. The “major public fight” Sargent talks about also didn’t come on a righteous case for taxes as a public imperative that he backs, as I tweeted back to Sargent yesterday, but as a silly monogram fight over corporate jets, which truly is a pathetic rhetorical salvo, because it doesn’t come close to actually making the economic argument needed from Democrats.

Piggy-backing on Sargent’s “major public fight” case, today on “Morning Joe,” Mark Halperin said that Pres. Obama pleased Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but not John Boehner, when the only deal that can happen will instead please Boehner and not Pelosi. It backs up Sargent, but also illustrates everything that’s wrong with political analysis today, though this is what’s believed.

Again, the problem isn’t pleasing Pelosi over Boehner, it’s that Pres. Obama’s rhetoric on private jets isn’t moored in the righteous policy belief required that would put him equal to Boehner and the Republicans. There’s simply no way for an agnostic Democrat who doesn’t believe in taxes and revenue over spending cuts to win against Republicans who have religion on no tax increases.

Meanwhile, as Dylan Ratigan noted the other day, Rep. Eric Cantor, who walked out of negotiations has not divested in a fund that has been found shorting Treasurys.

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.

“If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, investors would start fleeing U.S. Treasuries,” said Matt Koppenheffer, who writes for the investment website the Motley Fool. “Yields would rise, prices would fall, and the Proshares ETF should do very well. It would spike.”

The fund hasn’t significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty. (One tactic some speculators are using is to “trade the debt ceiling debate” — that is, to place short-term bets on prices as they fluctuate with the news out of Washington.)

The true problem in this debate is that you can wrap the rich around Republicans all you want, but the Democratic message since Obama’s been in office has been bipartisan deals to big business, big banks, big insurance and big Pharma, as well as tax cuts, with the puny push lately from the White House being the corporate jet card. So, if Republicans give in on jets and oil subsidies that’s it?

Obama’s defensiveness on raising taxes and revenue puts Republicans exactly where they want to be with their base, which is aggressively supporting spending cuts, with the Biden-led gang all in on that part, while reduced to begging for tax increases and revenue. All because Pres. Obama waited 2 and a half years to make the Democratic case, which he made poorly yesterday.

Democratic economic philosophy is not simply about corporate jets and oil subsidies. It’s about the belief that a safety net for the middle class is the foundational tenet of the party, which includes what even Ronald Reagan did when push came to shove and did so unapologetically, even if he didn’t like it, and that was raise taxes 11 times back in the ’80s. As a former F.D.R. Democrat, Reagan had learned from the best.

Taxes and stimulus in a recession are what gets you out of it. Corporate jets and oil subsidies are indeed part of the picture, especially symbolically on priorities. But the driving force must be the belief that taxes and revenue fund government’s purpose, including to aid the poor, the middle class and the overall health of an ailing economy, as well as keep this country strong through infrastructure, moon projects, great energy expeditions, etc., which is the foundation for the American dream.

Even Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann accepts what the federal government offers to her family and her state, because tax revenue is important to small businesses and the health of a functioning state government.

It’s only been in the Obama era that the Democratic Party leader became ashamed of making the case for raising taxes and revenue as a necessary element of funding government, instead of a last ditch case to pick some public fight after Democrats have already handed over spending cuts unequal to what they’ve demanded on revenue.

Pres. Obama has never been interested in making the Democratic economic case, while Republicans won’t stop making theirs. That’s why from the start of this debate there has been a disproportionate amount of spending cuts on the table, compared to tax revenue.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Pres. Obama’s Idea of Negotiating

By on 28 June 2011

The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy. [...] The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve. – Bush rates are kept safe in debt-limit talks

Pres. Obama plays golf with Speaker Boehner and Gov. John Kasich, so you can’t expect him to understand what his moral economic cowardice means to middle class Americans looking on at this spectacle.

I’m beyond appalled that Pres. Obama and the Democrats continue handing Republicans the economic argument, because they’re too scared to make the case Sen. Bernie Sanders has made innumerable times, the latest Monday on the Senate floor.

Shared sacrifice doesn’t exist in any meaningful way if you’re afraid to rescind the Bush tax cuts, while allowing Medicare tinkering and cuts, as Sen. McConnell is insisting in order to keep Sen. DeMint from jumping his leadership job.

The current rumblings leaking out of negotiations are indefensible from a Democratic, progressive or liberal perspective.

The immediate goal is to find upward of $2.4 trillion in 10-year savings and revenues to help offset what would be an almost equal increase in the federal debt ceiling to be voted prior to Aug. 2 — the deadline set by the Treasury Department. Thus far, the Biden talks have identified an estimated $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion in spending reductions — two-thirds of the final goal. The challenge is to either close the gap with some mix of savings and revenues or retreat to settling for a shorter-term debt increase equal to the lesser savings figure. – Revenue vs. cuts in debt debate

I certainly hope this turns out differently than it’s currently playing in my mind, because right now the willingness of Pres. Obama and the Democrats to offer so much on spending reductions without Republicans having any skin in this game is making me nauseous.

Remember, however, that what’s happening is because Pres. Obama wants it to be this way. What’s happening in the debt talks is coming down to decisions he approves of and is negotiating himself. You can’t blame this disaster on Republicans; well, you can, but then you’d be lying like the partisan hacks who are covering for Obama amidst this travesty he set up in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Joe Biden Won the Afghanistan Debate

By on 23 June 2011

official photo by Pete Souza

It’s all about Pakistan now.

Pres. Obama felt compelled to tell the whole history of why we’re in Afghanistan in a bloated, if shorter than usual address to the nation, but this is where he should have started:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

First, as much as I disliked Pres. Obama’s speech last night, it doesn’t come close to the despicable spectacle on Fox News channel when Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain. McCain’s performance was foreshadowed by Bill O’Reilly, when he said Petraeus should basically get whatever he wants, proving it was the Roger Ailes talking point edict of the night. Using General Petraeus to attempt to undermine Pres. Obama showed political cowardice, with Sen. McCain’s opportunism made worse by the anti-constitutional notion that the military is the conductor of U.S. foreign policy and military actions, instead of the President.

Gates even felt compelled to say he supported Pres. Obama’s decision, which clearly was a reaction to the political posturing promoted by Ailes and his minions on Fox.

Steve Clemons hit this note before the speech:

Second, Barack Obama cannot appear to be a tool of the US military or General Petraeus, who has emerged as the stamp of approval or disapproval for some — like John McCain — of what the President decides. This is not healthy for the country. The military executes the President’s strategy, but some in the Pentagon have crossed lines they shouldn’t. Obama needs to show he is in control.

But Pres. Obama should have saved us all the time and simply said, I’m the guy who got bin Laden, so I don’t intend to take crap from anyone.

[...] But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. [...]

The content of Pres. Obama’s speech last night couldn’t have been much worse when he cravenly invoked isolationism, daring to suggest this notion even with there absolutely no evidence that anyone is seriously considering such a position, particularly in his own party, which is where this is directed.

This is Barack Obama at his worst, with his ego showing through because of what’s happening in Congress surrounding Libya, where the President is clearly wrong.

Hearing Obama talk about “progress” and America being “an anchor to global security” was utilizing words of war used by any president stuck in a situation of his own making, while trying to fool his audience it’s what we do. It doesn’t have to be and it no longer can be, especially in a country like Afghanistan that is sucking us dry.

From Spencer Ackerman, in a piece that is really important to read:

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t — do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.

It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

It’s important here to mention David Petraeus moving to Panetta’s renewed C.I.A., where he’ll play an intense leadership role in what Spencer writes about above. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the hearing on the C.I.A.’s wider role, which was so effective in the bin Laden kill.

The big problem with the import of Pres. Obama’s message is the political foundation, culminating right before the election.

It’s simply no way to run a foreign policy, but that’s what our politics pushes, so politicians like ambitious presidents seeking a second term don’t get caught on the losing side of wars.

As for V.P. Joe Biden, he never wanted the Afghanistan surge, Libya or Iraq, and always thought Pakistan was the ballgame in this region (read his guest post on the subject from 2007). He won’t get the credit, but his message finally got through.

Sen. McCain couldn’t resist a jab at V.P. Biden when talking to Hannity, complete with that pinched little grin McCain plasters on his mug when he’s on camera and knows he’s been beaten.

The House should not let Pres. Obama’s timid withdrawal plans stop them from challenging him, just as they continue to do on Libya.

Of course, we all know what happens when courage is shown in the House. The Senate responds with silence.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

2012 Dish: Biden Courts GeoCities Co-Founder & Gay Activist

By on 31 May 2011

V.P. Biden did some heavy courting of the gay and lesbian community via the South Hampton this past weekend, staying at David Bohnett’s “sprawling” estate, who is a player in the gay, bisexual and transgender-rights activist world. From Page Six:

On Sunday, Biden was spotted on the beach while a huge security presence was visible at Bohnett’s First Neck Lane estate. Tech entrepreneur Bohnett, a large contributor to the Democratic National Committee, is a family friend of the Bidens. He founded GeoCities, is a trustee of amfAR and chairman of the David Bohnett Foundation.

A White House spokesman said, “I can confirm the Bidens are staying at the private residence of David Bohnett,” adding they were there from Friday until yesterday.

This is just another example of how important moneyed activists in the LGBT community are to Democrats going into 2012 and just how important they think backing Obama-Biden is. Republicans are as hostile as they’ve ever been to this community, with the Right’s war on women just one example of the damage they can do when in power in the states. Obama’s presidency gave this community movement on DADT, so that’s where the money will remain.

h/t Ben Smith

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Chair DNC

By on 05 April 2011

Wasserman Schultz, 44, was chosen for her strength as a fund-raiser and as a television messenger, and for her clout in the crucial swing state of Florida, the sources said. – Mike Allen

V.P. Joe Biden said, in part, “In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit, and her ability to overcome adversity. … No one should have any doubt that Debbie will work hard to strengthen our party and our country.”

Anybody is better than Tim Kaine, who’s now running for Webb’s Senate seat in Virginia.

This old video is interesting because it pits Paul Ryan against Schultz, but also because it reveals Ryan for an incredibly sexist lout.

Schultz’s appointment is not a first, but it’s a powerful appointment that reveals more Obama 2012 maneuvering.

Mary Louise Smith ran the Republican National Committee from 1974 to 1977. Jean Westwood ran McGovern’s horrific campaign and was appointed the first woman to chair either major political party organizations, back when McGovern won the nomination. Debra DeLee ran the DNC from 1994-1995.

One commenter over on my FB page said it was in the hopes of drawing progressives to the party.

This is strictly about Pres. Obama’s reelection and appealing to women. Democrats have let that advantage slip, which we saw was catastrophic in the 2010 midterms, with Republicans and Dems splitting the women’s vote.

But Rep. Schultz is not a progressive. She’s a powerfully connected corporate Democrat, which is what it takes to get a position of power in the party.

It will be good if Schultz has a media presence, especially on the Sunday political shows, as she’s as good as the Democrats have in media.

Democrats continue to fall behind the Right on having a female presence in national politics, so Chairwoman Schultz is a plus on that note as well.

However, progressive Democrats still have no woman rising yet who shows interest or the power to compete in the 2016 primaries and none who comes close to anything resembling what Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann offer their Tea Party factions in 2012.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

‘Cut It or Shut It’ Tea Party, Bruce Springsteen and Chris Christie’s Cuts

By on 31 March 2011

Sean Hannity was squealing today on his radio show about Speaker John Boehner going “wobbly” on the budget. Throwing bones to his Tea Party listeners, I guess Hannity forgot that Democrats control the Senate and there’s a Democrat in the White House, too. Nothing like a circus in place of seriousness.

According to The Hill, “no more than a couple hundred people” showed up in Washington to push the Republicans on the budget talks being run by V.P. Joe Biden, with Rep. Michele Bachmann stating that cutting Planned Parenthood is non-negotiable.

Democrats are cutting non-discretionary spending after giving in on tax increases, satisfied with letting the poor take a hit, which amounts to allowing Republicans to win the round.

The “cut it or shut it” Tea Party crowd is setting up Speaker Boehner versus Rep. Eric Cantor narrative, who may take a stand against the boss, which would further ostracize Boehner, maybe even set the Speaker up for a Tea Party challenge.

Important to note, however, is that as the Tea Party yells about spending cuts, their money train continues to be revealed.

For one thing, quite a few of the congressional Tea Party darlings get farm subsidies. John Karl of ABC nailed them on GMA. Eliminating farm subsidies would be real cutting; $16 billion was spent in 2009, according to Karl, one-quarter of a trillion dollars in the last 15 years.

If politicians wanted to get serious we wouldn’t have a fiscal crisis. However, since they won’t it leaves the U.S. in a terrifying position, because there simply is no way these game show hosts pretending to be leaders want to do what’s necessary, which starts at the Pentagon and has absolutely nothing to do with stiffing the lower middle class.

Even Bruce Springsteen took on one of his biggest fans, Gov. Chris Christie, after The Boss read this article. Mr. Springsteen’s letter to the editor focuses on something few Democrats care about today.

These are voices that in our current climate are having a hard time being heard, not just in New Jersey, but nationally. Finally, your article shows that the cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years. I’m always glad to see my hometown newspaper covering these issues. – Bruce Springsteen

For the Tea Party “cut it or shut it” crowd, as well as politicians like Gov. Christie, these non-compassionate conservatives think longer, stronger boot straps are the answer. They’ll get applause from Rush.

Unfortunately, the Democrats aren’t showing another way, which begins with a surtax on mil-billionaires, then targeting glut at the Pentagon in a serious way, though you can’t do that and start another war.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The Dynamic War Duo, Clinton and Obama

By on 31 March 2011

The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials. While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said. – C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels

Whether Congress approves Obama’s escalation for Libya that’s the road we’re on. We knew Obama was a fan of Reagan, but he didn’t have to go down the Contra-esque road to prove it.

As for where this leaves unconsulted Democrats, they’re stuck with this cold crap sandwich and have to swallow the reality that Obama doesn’t think much of Congress. But considering they’ve not done their equal branch job for a very long time no president today would respect them.

The position the progressive Left is in is as bad as it gets.

Nobody should be surprised about what we’ve learned today. It was inevitable. This post on the CIA being on the ground is in the weeds but worth it with a grain of salt applied, if only for the note to CIA Director Panetta that invokes “Samantha’s War for Virtue.”

As for Sec. Clinton, this is the second time she’s been as close to the presidency as you can get without being the president herself. She’s doing the heavy lifting for Pres. Obama, while he spends some very difficult moments ruminating about the colossal mess he’s gotten himself into and how serious it all is.

V.P. Biden may be Obama’s consigliere, but the President isn’t listening to him. It proves that Obama never intended the vice presidency to be anything close to what Cheney was to Bush, which means Clinton’s in the right spot for her personality and the job Obama needs her to do.

But even if Obama intends to employ the full weight of the presidency, Congress can still cause him trouble.

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy “A” team — led by Cabinet secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates — failed to quiet criticism of U.S. military action in Libya Wednesday during a pair of classified briefings on Capitol Hill. More than anything, the meetings served to underscore how little influence Congress has in shaping the war. – Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates win no love on Capitol Hill

There’s no telling why Sec. Clinton now has the highest approval rating she’s had since ’99. But it could be because Pres. Obama’s leadership style is cool, distant and arrogant, while she comes off as a woman in charge, which is exactly where her boss has put her.

Libya has also aligned Obama and Clinton as tightly as a President and his Secretary of State can be.

No doubt Madeleine Albright is living vicariously through Clinton’s power. In her memoirs Ms. Albright hoists up a quote through a question to Colin Powell that is now legendary: “What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can’t use it?”

The biggest loser in all this is V.P. Joe Biden, the most experienced foreign policy hand within the range of Pres. Obama’s voice. But Biden was against ratcheting up in Afghanistan, so he sure wouldn’t buy into Libya. Looks like he’s two for two, though I doubt it gives him any comfort.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Since Arming Afghanistan Worked So Well, Why Not Libya?

By on 30 March 2011


UPDATED… REUTERS Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels. Also, Clinton said in a classified briefing to House members what I’ve already written, which is that Obama would have ignored any war resolution rebuffs and all attempts to inhibit executive power on Libya.

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday. Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter. Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

___________________ORIGINAL COLUMN BELOW______________

But some administration officials argue that supplying arms would further entangle the United States in a drawn-out civil war because the rebels would need to be trained to use any weapons, even relatively simple rifles and shoulder-fired anti-armor weapons. This could mean sending trainers. One official said the United States might simply let others supply the weapons. [...] It also carries echoes of previous American efforts to arm rebels, in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and elsewhere, many of which backfired. The United States has a deep, often unsuccessful, history of arming insurgencies. – Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is rationalizing that regardless of the arms embargo on Libya, the Obama administration could decide to arm the rebels, because the UNSC resolution has enough wiggle room to allow us to do it legally.

When people of my generation hear “trainers” we automatically think of Vietnam. But if trainers go in I guess the Obama administration can still say we have no “boots on the ground.” But it will be our trainers, because this goes well beyond the UN mandate.

Eli Lake is reporting “freelance jihadists” have now joined the Libyan “rebels” fighting Gadhafi’s forces.

Rebels have also now ceded territory they’d gained, with the only reason they won them in the first place being U.S. intervention, which will become more important as Gadhafi’s forces flex what power they have, which isn’t very impressive against the U.S.

If past is prologue, arming the Libyan rebels is a very bad idea.

However, now that Pres. Obama is committed he’s got little choice if this goes bad and Gadhafi starts surging. American prestige has been put on the line and with the 2012 election coming Pres. Obama cannot afford a loss of the rebels losing.

War is politics by another means, but you have to be committed when you let the dogs out. It’s even more important to know the territory and those willing to fight your adversary. That last criteria is why John Brennan, SecDef Gates and others were against this liberal interventionist misadventure, because these guys knew that a humanitarian crisis could actually spiral into something even uglier where U.S. interests, capital, and attention required are concerned.

Meanwhile, V.P. Joe Biden remains muzzled and mute.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Well, That Worked Out Well

By on 24 March 2011

The original intent of the no-fly zone was to prevent carnage in Benghazi. It did. Now fears are growing that a humanitarian crisis is coming across Libya.

Who could have predicted that? After all, war never causes these types of secondary issues– Oh, strike that. Pres. Obama and his administration say this isn’t a war. I keep forgetting that point. If Obama says it isn’t a war it isn’t a war, right?

Then what is it? According to the White House, it’s a “kinetic military action.”

Q But it’s not going to war, then?

MR. RHODES: Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya. What we are doing is offering a unique set of capabilities over a period of days that can shape the environment for a no-fly zone.

What could possibly go wrong with this mumbo jumbo?

See Byron York.

What a giant political disaster Pres. Obama has created. And not calling what’s being done in Libya a war? Who are these guys and how did they get to such a level of leadership? It’s absolutely juvenile.

It’s hard to find a precedent for a president ordering U.S. military forces into action, then heading off for a five-day tour of Latin America, but that’s just what President Barack Obama did when he approved the deployment of air and naval assets to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. His homecoming gift is a barrage of questions about the military action Obama aides refuse to label a “war.” – Unanswered questions about Libya

It takes “word salads” to a whole new level.

The New York Times is running an op-ed today about “Among Allies, Discord Over Libya.” That’s putting it mildly.

Jamie Rubin put it well on MSNBC this morning. There’s an old saying about NATO, which has an alternative acronym: Needs America To Operate. The reason America usually leads, which is why the Right and others are caterwauling about the operation, is that without our lead things fall apart.

Pres. Obama missed that lesson and is now in the middle of an international diplomatic firing squad, while his people are arguing about whether this is a war or not.

I can picture V.P. Joe Biden right now muttering expletives under his breath.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama Administration ‘Senior Official’: Women’s Rights in Afghanistan ‘special interest and pet project… pet rocks in our rucksack’

By on 06 March 2011

“Nobody wants to abandon the women of Afghanistan, but most Americans don’t want to keep fighting there for years and years,” the official said. “The grim reality is that, despite all of the talk about promoting women’s rights, things are going to have to give.” – In Afghanistan, U.S. shifts strategy on women’s rights as it eyes wider priorities

Sect. Clinton’s signature diplomatic and foreign policy tenet, human rights are women’s rights, is the latest casualty in an Afghanistan policy that’s been a failure since Pres. Bush abandoned the country for Saddam Hussein.

This quote from a “senior official” in the Obama administration says it all:

“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities,” said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. “There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.”

Ah yes, the reason the U.S. has blown the mission in Afghanistan is because of all “those pet rocks in our rucksack,” pointing a finger at women’s issues.

It reminds me of the back and forth I got into with Steve Clemons when he quoted Dana Priest on Rachel Maddow about having to sneak women out of Afghanistan when it got bad.

“… (Dana Priest) is increasingly of the view that we’re going to probably have to come to terms with the Taliban and just find a way to tunnel out women, because it will be an awful reality for them, otherwise this will be a never ending war …” – Steve Clemons

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan has brought women out of the shadows, but the mentality of the culture and country remains in the past. Afghan men still believe in the old saying “a woman’s place is in the home or in the ground.” The U.S. cannot change this reality.

No one has the moral energy, the commitment of mission, and the Obama administration has simply lost the effort to build a nation in Afghanistan, which was a foolhardy mission from the start. Fighting against culture, religious beliefs and a country run by backwards men, we cannot drag them into the 19th century.

The U.S. mission to empower Afghanistan women has won some victories. We can only hope Newsweek’s article about the Taliban continues to unwind in favor of middling modernity.

It was clear the moment Gen. McChrystal imploded on the pages of Rolling Stone, which is the moment Pres. Obama lost me, that it was over. The revelations about Gen. Caldwell’s reported psyops plan drilling down the point. We’ve simply done all we can do and the rest may indeed depend on tunneling women out who are threatened by the men of a country who don’t understand that without the women Afghanistan will never be stable.

It makes you wonder what might have happened and been possible if Pres. George W. Bush hadn’t lied about WMDs, and politicians in both parties, which included Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many others, hadn’t gotten distracted by Iraq.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Mubarak Reportedly Handing Power to Suleiman, Admin Sources ‘Need to See it Happen’

By on 10 February 2011

**UPDATED**

CNN and MSNBC are reporting that a “senior U.S. official” says Pres. Mubarak is about to hand over Egypt’s government to V.P. Omar Suleiman, solidifying yet another military dictatorship, this time under the C.I.A.’s man on rendition. C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta weighed into this news, saying it’s a “strong likelihood,” via a congressional hearing. John King confirms this story, with one Administration official saying they have “specific information,” but “we need to see it happen” and that it is getting information inside Egypt supporting the rumor swirling.

According to CNN’s Ben Wedeman just a few minutes ago (12:05 pm EST), state run media is now running banners saying “Egypt is changing,” while also showing clips of protesters.

The conspiracy theories on what could happen in Egypt, with the large scale strikes now happening, have also broken out, answering my question from last week about the possibility of a coup being the last solution. CNN reporting that an Egyptian source said this is “a consensus not a coup.” To update, Richard Engel called it “this soft, or elegant, coup.”

Via The Lede (12:45 pm EST):

Statement of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces
10 February 2011

Based on the responsibility of the Armed Forces, and its commitment to protect the people, and to oversee their interests and security, and with a view to the safety of the nation and the citizenry, and of the achievements and properties of the great people of Egypt, and in affirmation and support for the legitimate demands of the people, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces convened today, 10 February 2011, to consider developments to date, and decided to remain in continuous session to consider what procedures and measures that may be taken to protect the nation, and the achievements and aspirations of the great people of Egypt.

And considering the State Dept. had ample warning going back to the Green uprising in Iran, saying they’re late to the Arabic Twitter party is an understatement, but they have finally arrived.

Its first message? #Egypt #Jan25 تعترف وزارة الخارجية الأمريكية بالدور التاريخي الذي يلعبه الإعلام الإجتماعي في العالم العربي ونرغب أن نكون جزءاً من محادثاتكم

(Translation: “We want to be a part of your conversation!”)

The new State Department Arabic Twitter feed, @USAbilaraby, joins a growing chorus of Twitter feeds describing and commenting on events in Egypt and across the Arab world, where social media is helping to broadcast political ferment.

The real problem for the Obama administration right now, however, is at this late date they’re still trying to find their voice, with two stories finally widening the lens to important voices combating the old guard realpolitik.

Suleiman’s behavior reinforced the arguments of another camp inside the Obama administration, including National Security Council members Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, which contends that if President Obama appears to side with the remnants of Mubarak’s discredited regime, he risks being seen as complicit in stifling a pro-democracy movement. – Obama’s advisors split on when and how Mubarak should go

Many of you will remember Samantha Power as the woman who called candidate Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the primary season. She long ago apologized and took her place inside the Obama administration, and now she’s once again on opposite sides of old guards like Biden, Clinton and SecDef Bob Gates.

The LA Times reports reality in their subheading: White House aides acknowledge that the differing views among Obama’s team of advisors has resulted in a mixed message on Egypt.

For fear of choosing wrongly and getting blamed, Pres. Obama is trying to have it both ways, which simply won’t work hasn’t worked.

POLITICO also has a story of White House spin on the messaging, which isn’t very convincing either. You can follow my columns since Clinton’s “stable” comment back on Jan. 25th that proves there’s been confusion mixed with incoherence at times. Once Mubarak let his thugs out it shifted the entire conversation and everything shifted.

So, we wait on Mubarak.

The Obama administration’s issue with Egypt remains what I’ve been writing about for several days now. It’s the difference between realpolitik versus idealism, with many of Obama’s die hard fans never believing he’d be on the side of Kissingerism. Anyone reading here since 2007, however, was at least prepared for it.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

All Aboard!

By on 09 February 2011

Excited? You bet.

This is what Pres. Obama should have done his first days in office. This is our real Sputnik moment. Few things are more important than connecting America through trains, but also the general focus on mass transit. Our energy challenges demand it.

The short-sided nature of the Republicans today make this a very hard sell. Michelle Malkin squeals about crony capitalism, which coming from a Republican is laugh out loud hilarious. Pajamas Media has one writer standing up against modernization with a simple slogan: “We don’t have any money left. Cut it out.”

We’re nation building in Afghanistan, while giving $1.3 billion to the Egyptian military, with the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans getting a tax break, but Republicans won’t spend money on infrastructure in the U.S.

When is it a good time to spend money in America?

Here’s what the White House sent out yesterday, with Bloomberg’s story on it here:

President Barack Obama will ask Congress next week to approve a six-year, $53 billion program for construction of a national high-speed and intercity rail network, Vice President Joe Biden said.

“There are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation — one of which is infrastructure,” Biden said in a speech today at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. Obama submits his fiscal 2012 budget to Congress on Feb. 14.

America is so far behind the rest of the world on trains and connecting cities in our country that we look like we haven’t even entered the 21st century. Listening to Republicans today means we never will.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }