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 | Mitt Romney

Santorum Sweeps

By on 08 February 2012

His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support. – The New York Times


“Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota.” – Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney’s remarks in Colorado began with making excuses for the tiny crowd, saying it wasn’t as big as the 2,000 plus he had last night, but after all it was snowing, so thanks for coming out. Then walked off the stage to shake hands, with the Secret Service suddenly pulling Romney back and helping him duck what looked like on CNN another glitter bomb attack. That was before he found out Rick Santorum had pulled off a major upset in that state, a major trifecta, handing Mitt Romney a huge embarrassment and a major setback, which makes him look an even weaker frontrunner than ever before.

With his triumphs, Mr. Santorum was also suddenly presenting new competition to Newt Gingrich as the chief alternative to Mr. Romney, the front-runner. Where Mr. Gingrich has won one state, South Carolina, Mr. Santorum has now won four, including Iowa. – Another Twist for G.O.P. as Santorum Fares Well

Rick Santorum’s massive Missouri win last night didn’t surprise me at all. Growing up in Missouri, it’s a conservative southern state, with both KKK and so-called “right to life” woven into the fabric of much of the state.

Wisconsin gave Mr. Santorum a big win too, with Ron Paul coming in second, Mitt Romney third.

It was Colorado, however, that brought the story of Tuesday night into stark view.

Santorum’s victory speech was given before Colorado came in, with the big winner of the night attempting a grander reach in his rhetoric. He needed a teleprompter, because he couldn’t handle the scope or the theater of the moment off the cuff. However, in moments he showed more ease and authentic conservatism than anyone else yet, a quality that has also made Ron Paul so popular.

In contrast, there was Mitt Romney. His Colorado speech was gracious to Rick Santorum, but team Romney is likely to drop a piano on him now. Romney attempted to mimic Santorum’s populism by bringing up his dad, citing George Romney’s humble beginnings, which was a nice touch, especially compared to the repetitive “I love America” patter that’s worn way thin at this point.

Oh, and some other guy named Newt Gingrich didn’t even make a blip on the Republican radar. It made March’s Super Tuesday look a long way away.

Santorum made the best case yet this primary season that he, yes, Rick Santorum, is not only the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but the guy who is seen as the frontrunner can’t make a closing case with conservatives.

Money should come flowing in to Rick Santorum today.

However, nobody has the organization of Mitt Romney. But it does pose a vice presidential reality that won’t be a choice for Romney if Santorum can get traction from the triumphs he garnered last night.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Women Want Their Birth Control

By on 07 February 2012

“The Peggy Noonan piece left some things out. … But I have to say, the article appears to be very misleading.” – Mika Brzezinski, “Morning Joe” (7 Feburary)

This started yesterday on “Morning Joe,” with Brzezinski reading part of an over the top declarative Peggy Noonan op-ed and getting very exercised about it before she had the facts.

Something very obvious and important is getting lost in the current contraceptive controversy.

If religious conservatives like Noonan really wanted to stop abortions and unplanned pregnancies they’d hail the opportunity for more women to have access to birth control without charge. That they aren’t says all you need to know.

David Axelrod on “Morning Joe” teased a compromise today, which is not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure. But does the Obama team actually believe religious conservatives are going to compromise? I mean, seriously, because that theory has worked so well with congressional Republicans? It’s the epitome of Obama logic and a catastrophic suggestion, especially when a majority of Catholics (and other religious Americans, including myself) agree with the Administration.

This whole argument has certainly revealed the priorities of religious conservatives, putting them at odds with women. Birth control is an economic issue for modern women, regardless of faith, as is planning pregnancy itself. However, the religious institution and whipping up a crisis around religious freedom that doesn’t exist is paramount in the minds of Republicans, because they want it for a political issue, which was proven quickly because that’s the first place they went. Democrats are more concerned with getting important reproductive health care to low and middle income women, while bending over backward to keep from setting off a religious war with the right who won’t be deterred.

Rarely has an issue set up the political sides so starkly.

Again, if stopping unplanned pregnancies was the goal it’s clear who’d come out on top morally and it’s not religious conservatives or Republicans.

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

  • A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
  • There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
    • Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
    • Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
    • Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.
  • Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

As an aside, Massachusetts Mitt Romney issued a similar ruling as Pres. Obama did on contraceptives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney is railing against it today. Chalk it up as just another point of hypocrisy from Mr. Romney.

To Ms. Brzezinski’s credit, she changed her tune today after getting the facts from the White House, which Joe Scarborough labeled as talking to a “mouthpiece.” It’s unfortunate Brzezinski wasn’t armed with the facts before she read Noonan’s piece on the air, because this is important policy for women that needs everyone’s attention, no matter your politics or religion. But this type of thing happens far too often on cable, taking a traditional journalist’s op-ed as gospel when peers revere the writer.

There is no injury to freedom of religion by what the Obama administration has done. It’s patently false to say otherwise, which is what Noonan’s column implied, Joe Scarborough has insinuated, and Mark Halperin posits will alter the 2012 election, with Scarborough agreeing, of which there is absolutely no proof. What applies is if any institution provides health care to its employees they must provide women with the same contraceptive coverage as any other woman in the country. No discrimination because she’s working for a Catholic school or hospital. That in no way precludes what Catholics can choose for themselves.

The hypocrisy of religious conservatives is fully unmasked through this discussion. They evidently think immaculate intervention will stop pregnancy. If the Catholic Church and other religious political operatives really cared about stopping abortion they’d understand that’s what’s at stake here. Preventing unplanned pregnancy and putting the control of women’s lives in their own hands, which cannot happen without access to reproductive health care, starting with birth control.

Contraceptive coverage must be offered, whether you’re in a Catholic hospital or at Fordham.

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.

Bridgette Dunlap organized an off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors to provide prescriptions for birth control because Fordham University’s student health service does not do so.

As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions . Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely.

Title has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Obama and the Boiling Middle East

By on 07 February 2012

“So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria,” [Secy. Hillary Clinton] said. – Josh Rogin

It’s no secret I was against the Libya bombing and remain so. Watching the carnage in Syria reveals the flaws in the Obama administration’s strategy, as much as there was one. The unspeakable, which Josh Rogin said outright last night, is civil war in Syria. Even as Secy. Clinton worked the Arab League hard to make the NATO mission feasible, regime change looks differently once it’s over and the fallout begins.

See Egypt, where Americans are reportedly to be tried, including Secy. Ray LaHood’s son. Our so-called relationship today in that country as bad as it’s been in decades, which Josh Rogin explained with Chris Hayes last night. No doubt Secy. Clinton’s first instinct to bolster Mubarak came from this dreaded place. However, the truth is wider and deeper, of an American policy supporting dictators who are our allies in torture and rendition, as both Mubarak and Assad have been, while the people suffer.

The Arab Spring has unleashed a lot of energy, none of which Pres. Obama can predict, contain or manage very easily, but considering we engaged in the contagion to try and impact it, he’ll have to take ownership of something that is uncontrollably unpredictable.

Stephen Walt offers some thoughts on Syria, after the Libyan NATO mission.

One can argue that this was the right course of action anyway, because getting rid of a thug like Qaddafi was worth it. That’s a debate for another day, although I would note in passing that post-Qaddafi Libya remains deeply troubled and the collapse of the regime seems to be fueling conflicts elsewhere. But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren’t playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored “regime change.” It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Also read Marc Lynch on what a horror it is that the U.N. failed, which no doubt is making the neoconservatives gleeful.

I wrote about this just a few days ago, but if you count Iran and Israel, the economy may be the least of Obama’s worries, with the Middle East possibly throwing a curve to all the prognosticators.

With Pres. Obama’s foreign policy credentials including ordering the slaying of Osama bin Laden, there is no sense whatsoever that Mitt Romney can make a serious challenge to Pres. Obama if the Middle East goes south.

What that means to Republicans picking a nominee is anyone’s guess. It also could be why Newt Gingrich has seduced himself into thinking the race isn’t over.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Romney with Donald Trump, Now it’s Pete Wilson

By on 06 February 2012

Is Mitt Romney trying to throw this race? He couldn’t have picked anyone who better represents Hispanic rejection of all things Republican, former Gov. Pete Wilson.

“Romney can’t seem to stop himself from digging deeper and deeper into his hole with Latino voters,” said Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union in a statement. “Here is what Pete Wilson accomplished: He turned Latino voters against the GOP brand.” – LA Times

No wonder religious conservative Erick Erickson has thrown all caution to the ether and endorsed the “sweet meteor of death” over any of the current candidates.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

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

By on 06 February 2012

**UPDATED**

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

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

In Honor of Mitt Romney Winning in Nevada: ‘Poor Pee-ple’

By on 05 February 2012


Mitt Romney isn’t featured in the video above, but another rich Republican is. However, the video covers a subject dear to Mitt’s heart.

It’s a thing of beauty.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Mitt Romney Minute: Roll that Gafferiffic Footage

By on 04 February 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Mitt Romney has had his share of gaffes that are giving the Democrats the ammo needed to possibly destroy any hope he has of getting elected president. Gaffes become stories when they fit the narrative and the narrative is Mitt is a rich insensitive guy who does not get it.

What are some of his greatest hits that have become damning for him? Ah, memory lane so far (and I‘m probably missing a few along the way):

“Corporations are people my friend.”- Uh yeah: Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Romney Gets Even for New York Times Story

By on 03 February 2012

A GOP campaign operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the frontrunner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned. – Mitt Romney splits with Brett O’Donnell

Fridays is dump day in politics and the Romney camp has just done a whopper of one. This is as inside political baseball as it gets, but they’re fascinating if you’re interested in the machinations of political campaigns, which I am.

Last weekend, the New York Times ran a story replete with how Romney’s team, advisers, opposition-research crew, as well as a new debate coach, who became the talk after Romney took it to Gingrich, Brett O’Donnell, ganged up on Gingrich in Florida to give Mitt a victory. An excerpt:

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, had been receiving help from a new debate adviser — Brett O’Donnell, a longtime leader of the Liberty University debate team who advised Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in her campaign last year — and assumed a new role as the campaign’s chief attacker, relinquishing his old approach of leaving the dirty work to supporters and a friendly super PAC.

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.”

“The Romney team” became the subject of scathing rants by Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” this week, highlighting how scandalous it was for insiders in the campaign to be blowing their own horns, while giving little credit to Romney.

The closer to the article reveals what became a big problem as the week went on:

Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”

Mitt’s team tried to get Brett O’Donnell’s name removed from the piece before printing, but they couldn’t.

Ego is all in politics and after the debate everyone was talking about O’Donnell, if not by name.

There’s an old law in Hollywood: always support the star. If you pull focus you’re not going to be around long.

Mitt Romney’s team seen preening on the front page of the Times taking credit for Florida was bad enough, but having someone who actually made a difference in the candidate’s performance named out loud, well, that’s unforgivable.

So, late on a Friday night of Super Bowl weekend, they decided to cut someone loose to send a message. So who do they ax? Not an adviser or part of the oppo-research team, heaven forbid, they let O’Donnell go.

Message: Mitt Romney doesn’t need no stinking debate coach. He’s got game on his own.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

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

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Media Made a Laughingstock Chasing The Donald’s Endorsement

By on 02 February 2012

TM NOTE: HostGator botched its hosting duties, so I have been able to write today, but I’m finally back in now (though I still can’t get emails). Onward…

As the Las Vegas Review Journal predicts a massive win in Nevada (pronouced Neva-as in cat-da) by Mitt Romney, traditional and new media outlets fell over themselves last night and today trumpeting The Donald’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich, or so they thought.

There’s only one reason I didn’t write about the pending Donald Trump endorsement last night. It’s because when the news of a Newt Gingrich endorsement started ricocheting across the internets, I simply didn’t think it rang true. The Donald’s ego would never allow him to be caught being so absolutely wrong about something that happens to matter to his crowd, the 1%.

As I wrote earlier, no candidate needs to drop out, because there haven’t been near enough delegates allotted. However, that doesn’t mean Newt Gingrich isn’t over in every other sense. He can still drag his pompous patootie all the way to the convention, but considering he split Tea Party voters with Romney in Florida, I’d say it’s going to get very lonely for Gingrich long before Super Tuesday in March, which could be good for him. That he doesn’t have the organization will become apparent quickly, so his whole charade of a candidacy depends on the generosity of Sheldon Adelson.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman went with “Trump to endorse Newt” at around 9:30 p.m. last night, but that became “Trump to endorse Newt…or Romney?” when Politico figured out they’d gotten it wrong. Haberman, who is as good as it gets, went with this cover: The Times, in fact, went first.

Indeed they did. This is what Political Wire wrote yesterday: Update: The New York Times reports Trump will endorse Newt Gingrich.

That’s the only remaining evidence that they did, because the original announcement has been papered over with something that now reads like this:

10:37 a.m. | Updated RENO, Nev. — Newt Gingrich swept into Nevada on Wednesday trailing far behind Mitt Romney in state polls and lacking much campaign organization, but his aides were ready to boast of a flashy new endorsement: Donald Trump was supposed to announce his support of Mr. Gingrich on Thursday in Las Vegas, according to a senior campaign official.

But today came word that Mr. Trump – at least for now – was preparing to endorse Mitt Romney.

The confusion may reinforce impressions of disarray in the Gingrich campaign in Nevada, evident as the candidate hit the ground after a daunting defeat in the Florida primary and immediately became embroiled in a dust-up over a canceled meeting with Nevada’s governor.

Only the Wall Street Journal remained smartly circumspect in “Donald Trump: An Endorsement?”

Wingnut blogs and many others ran with the Newt endorsement, following the crowd.

The person who remains the one to watch on Romney news, Matt Drudge, had the facts from the start. The Donald backs Mitt Romney and if he wins the nomination there will be no third party or independent run for Mr. Trump.

Today begins the ratcheting down of the Republican circus parade that’s been so entertaining for the last year. Not too many weeks from now it’s going to get deadly serious.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

“Warning: There is an occupier entering the building,” and others are Occupying the Super Bowl

By on 01 February 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

The Occupy / 99% movement is about some very serious things. The police actions in Oakland and DC are among them. So is the effort in Indiana to, as WaPo puts it, bring the state into the “right-to-work era,” an interesting choice of words.

But first, because sometimes I just need a respite from the very serious, a focus on the absurd and the creative.

The People’s Library, which originated in Zuccotti Park, continues working to provide reading material, lectures, publication of original works, and creating mobile “libraries,” placing a few books on a park bench. Not without NYPD attention. A post at the The People’s Library, The Sad Story of Five Imprisoned Children’s Books, illustrates something of the absurd direction “police protection” sometimes goes. Obviously planned to make a point, last week Stephen Boyer and some 20 other people, armed with the receipt given at the time the books were confiscated, marched to One Police Plaza, to liberate them. The books, that is. Only Boyer was allowed to enter. He writes:

My fellow occupier cohorts were lucky to have stayed behind, as the NYPD took my photo using facial recognition software upon entering the building, they made copies of my ID, they radioed to officers throughout the building, ‘WARNING: THERE IS AN OCCUPIER ENTERING THE BUILDING.’

Alas, neither the ID nor the receipt proved sufficient to free the books from police custody. Boyer and other Occupiers left bookless, and NYC impressionable children were riot-gear protected from suspicious literature.

From Rolling Stone, news about “Occupy This Album.”

Occupy Wall Street now has an A-list soundtrack: the compilation Occupy This Album … will be released sometime this spring. …

Several of the contributors, including Joan Baez and Crosby and Nash, performed at the New York OWS site while it was still active. Proceeds from Occupy This Album will benefit the Occupy movement … .

In addition to Baez, Crosby and Nash, contributors include Debbie Harry, Jackson Browne, Yoko Ono, Third Eye Blind, Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, Tom Morello, Devo, Lucinda Williams, Yo La Tengo, Loudon Wainwright III, and Junkyard Empire.

Okay, I know this next one is a stretch, but I was thinking of the absurd, and so Newt Gingrich came to mind. On the campaign trail in Florida, Newt said: “I am an American, and Americans are instinctively grandiose.” That was him cleverly responding to Romney, of course. But here’s the thing: the crowd cheered. Maybe they don’t know what “grandiose” means. Maybe they’re grandiose. Maybe it had nothing to do with what Gingrich was saying. The line was followed by a pause, and so they responded to the cue to clap and cheer.

The fact that Newt, post-Florida, is talking about his first day in the White House, just adds to the surreal-but-unfortunately-typical game that is our “only choice” by which we play our carefully restricted role in determining which half of the Duopoly gets to be the WH representative of the oligarchy for the next four years.

Newt’s “Americans are instinctively grandiose” reminded me of those photos from the early days of OWS, with Wall Street-ers ostentatiously sipping champagne as they stood on the balcony above the Occupiers. Or similarly, the business school students, pretentiously looking down on Occupiers, with their “Get in my bracket” sign.

Which also brought me back to the NYPD’s “Warning: There is an occupier entering the building” announcement. There should be similar notices regarding political wannabe’s, and sitting Electeds. Something like, “Warning: There are instinctively grandiose individuals trying to buy your attention.”

Occupy the Super Bowl

And speaking of grandiose, there’s the Super Bowl, where the “world champion” of teams that only exist in one nation is very expensively crowned.

From Dave Zirin at The Nation:

The sheer volume of the Super Bowl is overpowering: the corporate branding, the sexist beer ads, the miasma of Madison Avenue–produced militarism, the two-hour pre-game show. But people in the labor and Occupy movements in Indiana are attempting to drown out the din with the help of a human microphone right at the front gates of Lucas Oil Stadium.

The labor and Occupy efforts are related to

… the Republican-led state legislature aims to pass a law this week that would make Indiana a ‘right-to-work’ state. …

This has drawn peals of protest throughout the state, with the Occupy and labor movement front and center from small towns to Governor Mitch Daniels’s door at the State House. …

Just as the parties start a week in advance, so have the protests. More than 150 people—listed as seventy-five in USA Today, but I’ll go with eyewitness accounts—marched through last Saturday’s Super Bowl street fair in downtown Indianapolis … .

Zirin writes about

the reality of life for working families in the city of Indianapolis. Unemployment is at 13.3 percent, with unemployment for African-American families at 21 percent. … Such pain amidst the gloss of the Super Bowl and the prospect of right-to-work legislation is, for many, a catalyst to just do something.

Quoting a local Occupier, April Burke:

‘I see right-to-work for what it is: an attack on not only organized labor but on all working-class people … . Rushing the passage of RTW in the State of Indiana on the eve of the Super Bowl is an insult to the thousand of union members who built Lucas Stadium as well as the members of the National Football League Players Association who issued a statement condemning the RTW bill.’

Just because things are absurd doesn’t make them any less powerful. In fact, given the ongoing success of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, I’d say absurdity sells very well.

( Occupy This Album via Music for Occupy
Wall Street-ers Sipping Champagne photo via AlterNet
Get In Our Bracket photo via Think Progress )

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor…’

By on 01 February 2012

Mitt Romney’s focus is on middle income Americans, not the poor, but also not the rich. How he framed it is something else. What this man doesn’t understand about political framing would fill the Library of Congress.

To be fair, it was Pres. Obama who proposed 2012 budget cutting several billion dollars from the government’s energy assistance fund for the poor. But at least he has the ear to understand you don’t say out loud what Mitt Romney said today.

Today with Soledad O’Brien on CNN:

Romney says, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
O’Brien asked him to clarify his remarks saying, “There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.’”

Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”

For Mitt Romney it’s always giant steps forward, followed by falling on his face. He won’t win against Pres. Obama being the GOP’s gafferiffic candidate of choice, though when you look at Newt Gingrich’s graceless grandiosity, Mitt’s machine is definitely the big plus.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

CNN: Romney ‘Shellacks’ Gingrich in Florida

By on 31 January 2012

Update: Introduced by Ann Romney, who is the best thing in the campaign, Mitt Romney finally decided to make a speech talking to the conservative base. It was exactly what he needed to do and it was good for him. Unfortunately, he couldn’t resist using the word “appease,” as well as a couple of other tone deaf words. Romney talked directly to the camera and made his first attempt to bring people on board. He also made the point to say that Republicans will be united in the fall.

Update 2: Newt Gingrich was the definition of a classless sore loser. He squealed against the establishment “in both parties.” Gingrich showed the depth and breadth of his grandiosity, especially after such a crushing defeat. It would have been surreal, but this man is bone-deep angry and he obviously intends to burn the Republican Party down around him if he doesn’t prevail.

Update 3: Ron Paul shows how it’s done, opening with a grace note to the winner Mitt Romney. He said he congratulated Romney, then told him he’d see him in the caucus states. The crowd around him is positively raucous. It’s impossible not to appreciate Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Update 4: Earlier in the evening Rick Santorum spoke from Nevada. He’s clearly running for the vice presidency.

_____original post below_____


“Mitt Romney is winning where the people live,” is how CNN’s John King described it.

Romney and Gingrich split the Tea Party 40% to 38% in Florida.

Gingrich won only by 3 points with evangelicals; among non-evangelicals Romney “shellacked,” John King’s words, Gingrich.

Gingrich is fleeing to Nevada.

They’ll meet Ron Paul in that state, with Jon Ralston saying he’s more organized than before, but where Mitt Romney has home court advantage, even if it is a caucus state.

The Republican Party in Nevada is, well… let’s just say weak.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Mitt’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Moment

By on 31 January 2012



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The $825,400 Man

By on 31 January 2012

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Hillary Never Said ‘All the Way to the Convention!’

By on 30 January 2012

Gingrich is making the case that Romney can’t get a majority at the convention, his small circle of advisers are already eyeing favorable states in March and April, and those close to the former back-bench bomb thrower are testifying to his legendary perseverance. – Newt Gingrich’s long march, by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman

Newt’s clinging to NewsMax. Their “Insider Advantage Poll” is propping him up the day before Florida in hopes that the bottom doesn’t drop out before voting tomorrow. If people start believing Romney is about to walk away with the state, leaners will bolt for Mitt, because no one likes to back a sure loser.

From Quinnipiac:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 – 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow’s election

However, if you’re listening to people on Newt world, none of this will matter. The cry today is all the way to the convention!

There’s no evidence yet that Newt Gingrich can amass 18 million votes, as Hillary did back in 2008. He’s a completely different type of candidate than Clinton, with only one casino banker, while Hillary had legions of fans and supporters. But on he trudges, with the help of Kelly Ann Conway, touting the south as his promised land. The biggest difference between Newt and Hillary is that never once was there any indication whatsoever that she would have taken her fight to the convention floor. It was never going to happen, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, getting vilified by Hillary fans for giving sound analysis that turned out to be true.

Of course, the cable yakkers tried hard to whip up a frenzy saying otherwise, as I recount in my book The Hillary Effect, with even the esteemed Rachel Maddow falling for this line, though she was hardly alone.

Newt Gingrich’s primary cry the day before Florida, however, is exactly that, threatening to start a war inside the Republican Party on the floor in Tampa.

“We have no evidence yet that Romney anywhere is coming close to getting the majority and I think when you take all of the non-Romney votes, it’s very likely that the convention will be a non-Romney majority and maybe a very substantial one. My job is to convert that into a pro-Gingrich majority.” – Newt Gingrich, via the Wall Street Journal

Make my year.

In the interim, Gingrich is spewing Adelson talking points to Jewish Floridians: “[Mitt Romney] eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.”

Wrenching voters out of their comfort zone one inflammatory statement at a time.

If the projected polling today is correct and Romney wins big in Florida, Newt’s viability will rest in Sheldon Adelson’s hands, because it’s clear the Republican establishment isn’t going to help and neither are their bankers.

What if Adelson folds? Newt’s never run a grass roots campaign in his life. He’s learning this anti-establishment schtick as he goes along. It’s just not clear whether his ego can survive being second to Santorum and Ron Paul.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Sheldon Adelson Couldn’t Buy Newt Florida

By on 30 January 2012

If you wanted to know the state of Newt Gingrich’s campaign right now all you had to do was watch Fred Thompson on Meet the Press on Sunday. With his hair slicked back and wisps of uncut frizz flipping out in the back, Thompson delivered his lines haltingly and with his head bowed, while focusing downward as he talked. I won’t get into the fantasy Thompson floated that if Republicans had held out during the government shutdown in the mid-90s they’d have… er, won. It was a tour de force whine from camp Gingrich about how big bad Mitt had played too dirty. Hypocrisy unlimited, the bellyaching stems from the reality that Newt can’t match Mitt’s money, because if he could he’d be doing the same thing. Anybody doubt that fact?

Favorite recent headline: Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida, an article by John Heilimann.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a weekend of trailing the former speaker to a series of events along the I-4 corridor, there was just no escaping that a campaign that was flying high (and even into outer space) ten days ago has now come crashing back to earth. At what was billed as a Hispanic town hall meeting at another church yesterday in Orlando, Gingrich was greeted by row after row of empty pews and maybe 40 voters in attendance. For a full hour after the scheduled starting time, Gingrich and his wife, Callista, sat outside, cloistered in his campaign bus — possibly sulking, possibly fuming at his campaign’s horrid advance work, and surely praying that a few more souls would show up. When Gingrich finally entered the building, it was announced that the event was a town hall no more; the candidate would speak briefly, then take pictures with the scant few who’d turned up. And “briefly” was an understatement: Standing behind a Lucite lectern, Gingrich talked for a bare eight minutes and eleven seconds, looking deflated and exhausted. By no small margin, it was the worst and saddest campaign event that I have witnessed in this presidential cycle.

Now all the talk in the political world is about how badly Newt Gingrich could get beat tomorrow, with everyone anticipating a large margin win by Mitt Romney.

A lot of Republicans are hoping for it and an end to the savage bloodletting, as well as the debates. Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press Sunday that they’ve got to end. Chris Wallace said the debates were “ridiculous,” “insane,” and “stupid” recently on a radio show. The next one is at the end of February, which will be a very long month for Newt Gingrich.

Sheldon Adelson bought Newt Gingrich South Carolina. What he’s gotten for his money is another story. It’s about Israel and Iran, but having a candidate in the race that can define the debate rightward where the Middle East is concerned.

RT @RyanLizza: Newt warning Iranians could easily blow up Jacksonville with nuclear weapon (via boat).

I retweeted the above to make the point. You may remember Gingrich saying the Palestinian people were “invented.”

We should all be thankful Mitt Romney’s rich, organized and that his campaign is not going to take their foot off Gingrich’s throat again.

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” – Zeke Miller, BuzzFeed

There’s no comfort when you look at Mitt Romney where the Middle East is concerned either. To say foreign policy isn’t his forte is an understatement. So with neoconservatives and John Bolton in the background, with Newt in cahoots with Adelson, it’s all very weirdly counterproductive for Israel and for the U.S. on the right.

Mr. Adelson and his wife were evidently cynical enough to believe that American Jews living in Florida would buy Newt’s message. It doesn’t look like it’s selling. The question is whether Adelson will keep the money flowing if Gingrich loses big in Florida, because where this race heads next depends on it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

By on 29 January 2012

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be

By on 28 January 2012



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

By on 28 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

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

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

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

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

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

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

Governor Mike Huckabee:

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

Voice-over:

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

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

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

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

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

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

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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