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 | Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi: Give me a ‘Satan Sandwich’ with ‘Satan Fries on the Side’

BREAKING… HOUSE PASSES ‘SATAN SANDWICH’

It was 1978 and Jimmy Carter was on his way down, down, down, and Donna Summers, disco and Reaganomics was on the way in and up. So, if in the 21st century we’re going to revisit Republican economics of the ’80s, we might as will bring back disco too.

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made her announcement in her own inimitable way.

From former Sen. Russ Feingold, founder of Progressives United:

“The debt ceiling deal should remove any doubt of the power corporate interests have over our government. That deal, hammered out by the president and Republican Congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass. Americans are willing to bear their share of the burden of addressing our nation’s long-term budget problems, but those sacrifices should be shared by all.”

Next…

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from the Debt Deal
Reaction from Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Executive VP/Acting CEO

“America’s seniors have been terrified by threats that their life-sustaining Social Security checks wouldn’t be delivered this month if the federal government were to default. So there is some good news in this debt deal if it passes; default will not deny millions of American seniors the benefits they’ve earned. However, that’s small consolation because it never should have come to this in the first place.

For too long, middle-class Americans and their families have been held hostage while anti-tax crusaders threaten American default unless vital programs, like Social Security and Medicare, are slashed. Unfortunately under this debt deal, those programs will still be under attack – this time by a newly-created ‘Super Committee’ of just 12 members of Congress tasked to cut programs by $1.5 trillion dollars. This committee plan will be fast-tracked to force it through Congress with no amendments allowed and little time for debate.

Americans of all ages and political persuasions know that Social Security and Medicare have not caused this economic crisis and do not support cutting these programs to pay down the debt. Yet, Washington continues to use these vital programs, and the Americans they serve, as bargaining chips in a quest to balance the budget on the backs of working class Americans and their families.

Our work is clearly cut out for us. The House Speaker has said he will appoint only “Super Committee” members opposed to revenue increases. Leaving the debate right where we started…100% benefit cuts and 0% revenue…except this time, the proposal will bypass the normal Congressional process. That makes it even easier to force middle-class benefit cuts to pay for billionaire tax breaks and corporate loopholes. This is no way to run a country. And the over 3 million members and supporters of the National Committee will continue to deliver that message loud and clear, focusing our efforts on this Super Committee as well as the rest of Congress and the White House.”

From the CBO:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the impact on the deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011, as posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules on August 1, 2011. The legislation would:

  • Establish caps on discretionary spending through 2021;
  • Allow for certain amounts of additional spending for “program integrity” initiatives aimed at reducing the amount of improper benefit payments;
  • Make changes to the Pell Grant and student loan programs;
  • Require that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution;
  • Establish a procedure to increase the debt limit by $400 billion initially and procedures that would allow the limit to be raised further in two additional steps, for a cumulative increase of between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion;
  • Reinstate and modify certain budget process rules;
  • Create a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction, with a stated goal of achieving at least $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years; and
  • Establish automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such savings.

Are you feelin’ it yet? Let’s dance, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Progressive Notes: Black Caucus Says NO Deal to Reid/Pelosi Austerity Plan

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

This is a important breaking story. The Congressional Black Caucus has come out this afternoon in opposition to the Reid Plan, which includes trillions in cuts that would devastate minorities the most. Recall Pelosi backs the Reid Plan, so this is a blow to her as a leader of the Democratic Caucus.

More:

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the over 40 members of the CBC will be voting ‘no’ on any plan that cuts government services — including the plan put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Cleaver says the caucus insists on a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling — the same kind of vote “we’ve done repeatedly since 1917.” Cleaver explained, “we can deal with the deficit questions later, but let’s not send the most powerful nation on the planet into default.” Rep. Allen West (R-FL), the one Republican member of the CBC, has said he will support Speaker Boehner’s (R-OH) plan.

There are 40 Black Caucus members, a significant block of the congress. All this search for a grand bargain is tearing apart both parties. Good for the Black Caucus for pushing for reason.

Here is their statement of opposition to all “deals” to simply raise the debt ceiling:

The Congressional Black Caucus’s Position on the Debt Ceiling No Cuts, No Cap, Just Raise

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 4:50pm

Washington, DC – Today, the Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus officially took a position in support of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Chairman Emanuel Cleaver released the following statement below:

“Let us remove every partisan reason to fight. Every rational American understands the need to pay our national debt. It is reckless to play Russian Roulette with our economy and with the solvency of our great nation. Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus support a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. We have run out of time between now and August 2nd to hash out a well thought out plan to address the debt ceiling, deficit reduction and revenue increases. Members of the Caucus are disappointed that some have used this debate as a distraction from the real crisis Americans continue to face every day— joblessness. We must reduce the deficit with a fair, and balanced approach that includes both revenues and spending cuts. Until we can achieve such a plan, we must raise the debt ceiling to give the markets certainty, avoid more disarray and prevent irresponsible cuts. We cannot in good conscience support bills that require draconian cuts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities. Yesterday we learned of the ever-widening wealth gap between white Americans and minorities. We cannot support anything that will further handicap those in our community. We all agree that we have to responsibly to reduce the deficit but not on the backs of hard-working American families, all while protecting special interests and the wealthiest Americans. People of color, seniors, and children heavily rely on vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Deep cuts to these critical programs would devastate our community.

“Now is the time for real work to be done, jobs to be created, and to protect and uplift our citizens. It is not the time for ideological wars. It is time to cut and cap the political games!”

Love that last line!

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Pelosi Falls to Austerity Craze, Clyburn – Becerra Cite 14th Amendment

**UPDATED**

“If that’s what lands on his desk, a short-term lifting of the ceiling, the debt ceiling, he should put it on his desk next to an executive order,” Clyburn said at a press conference. “He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The Associated Press reported that he was applauded when he suggested the idea at a caucus meeting earlier in the day. “I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets,” Clyburn added, noting that President Harry Truman did it once during his presidency after Congress was unable to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling. – Obama urged to invoke 14th Amendment as debt ceiling deadline nears

While Republicans are having a civil war that the establishment and Wall Street are trying desperately to negotiate through without becoming a casualty of their Tea Party extortionist wing, Democrats have completely collapsed.

UPDATE: 3:35 p.m.White House Press Secretary Jay Carney again ruled out the possibility of Obama using the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt dispute. “Our position hasn’t changed,” Carney said during his Wednesday briefing. “There are no off-ramps. … Only Congress has the legal authority.”

I still contend the debt ceiling will be raised, though I still hope not with anything more than the language required to raise it like has been utilized throughout history, on which Lawrence O’Donnell has done the bulk of the education.

However, after it’s all over what’s been learned is sobering, especially on the Democratic side of the equation where leaders have bought into Obamanomic Republicanism, jettisoning every principle important to Democrats and the middle class.

Rep. Pelosi has done another cave to Pres. Obama, this time to the President’s austerity fetish. It’s not getting any attention, but it proves she’s no longer the person to lead Democrats in Congress.

“It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice.

“The President has called for a ‘grand bargain,’ which provides long-term deficit reduction based on shared values and sends a message of confidence to the markets. [...]

The only thing that’s clear is that establishment Democrats can’t be trusted to protect the basic underlying principles of what it means to be a Democrat. I walked away from then Speaker Pelosi when she and Pres. Obama sold out women for the Stupak amendment, plus an executive signing statement, so her latest collapse to Obama’s conservatism comes as no surprise at all to me.

With House progressives losing Nancy Pelosi to Obama’s austerity craze, Democrats are in a principle tailspin.

The only light so far, besides Welch and Grivalja, is the House Democratic caucus’ response today, invoking the 14 Amendment, which you know by now makes my heart sing, even though Pres. Obama will never utilize it. Melissa Harris-Perry did a terrific segment last night while subbing for Rachel Maddow, but evidently it’s too hot for MSNBC videos so they didn’t upload it. You know, can’t be too outsiderish, now can we?

From the transcript of the press availability from the Democratic House leaders today:

Caucus Vice-Chairman Becerra: When the President says he’s not interested in invoking the 14th Amendment, I think the President’s saying I’m not interested in being the first in the history of this country of doing something that has not been tested.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment says that our debts are vowed and therefore we live – we will live and follow through with paying – we will honor them, we will pay them.

There’s going to be some hangover after the debt ceiling debacle ends and what lies ahead looks like the mother of all political migraines for anyone on the Left.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

The part where the light dawns.

It’s amateur hour in the White House briefing room, starring Pres. Obama, because he naively bet his whole position on the premise that he could serve up entitlements to seduce Republicans into making him look good with Independents, but instead gets caught in the age old Republican stiff-arm, which hit Obama and his team in the face like a fire hydrant breaking open on a smoldering summer city street. But instead of getting cooled off by the blast it sent Pres. Obama into orbit. Whenever you see him as pissed off as he was on Friday night you can bet he’s worried about his own political hide. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 74 }

Following Obama’s Buzz Words

From Sam Stein:

“The story overshoots the runway,” said a senior administration official. “The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”

“While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit,” the official added, “it does need to be strengthened.”

Ah, strengthened, ri-ight.

Then a statement from Jay Carney:

“There is no news here,” Carney said. “The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”

Maybe the Tea Party will save Democrats from their feckless “leader.” Just maybe they’ll be stupid enough to stiff Pres. Obama on the “deal of the century” he’s offering.

Go Eric Cantor, come on, baby, be your bad self and stiff the President. You know you want to.

…or just maybe, maybe, Nancy Pelosi will finally make up for her horrendous cave-in to the Catholic Church during health care, to draw a line where any principled Democrat would.

[... It’s safe to say at this point that the White House is starting to get the credit it wants for working hard to find a compromise even as Republicans work hard to resist one. But that’s not a triumph of messaging. It is, if anything, an understatement based on the White House’s willingness to give congressional Republicans a much more lopsided deal than Reagan, Bush or Clinton presided over. Republicans might be fools for passing on it, but if and when they finally say “yes,” a lot of Democrats are going to be wondering whether the Democrats were suckers for offering it. - Ezra Klein

It’s not over until the Tea Party squeals.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Debt Chicken is the Democrats’ Fault

“…There’s the politics and then there’s the arithmetic and the arithmetic says we’re not getting to the right place. … …and the idea that we’re not going to raise revenue… (waving hands in the air)… seems to be (shakes his head)… I don’t even understand this conversation. …” – Andrew Ross Sorkin

I hope the Democratic Party poobahs choked after seeing this segment on “Morning Joe.” They deserve to. This predictable conversation was what I warned was going to happen a long time ago, because when Democrats parrot Republican economic messages it’s going to end one way, very badly, not only for the country, but for Democrats when they decide to pull their heads out of the sand.

“but… but… but…” Joe Scarborough stammered, turning quickly to Mike Barnicle, making the case for the title I chose here. In the end, it’s the Democratic Party’s fault, because in the Obama era no one with the power to convince made the case for tax increases from the start.

So hearing Rep. Chris Van Hollen and other Democrats bemoaning Republicans not compromising on revenue increases is pathetic. Democrats set this dynamic up.

Scarborough laid it out, something that should hit hard on Democrats, saying “Barack Obama does not want to raise taxes now.” Continuing, back when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, she didn’t either, and she wants to be speaker again. The Washington Post has a story on this today:

What makes Pelosi different is not that she lost that cherished gavel — but that she didn’t head for the exit when she did. Pelosi is the first former speaker since Sam Rayburn, more than half a century ago, to remain in the House as the head of her party and to fight to get her majority back.

[...] But if Pelosi wears her scars as a badge of honor, her closest allies don’t hide their feelings of grievance on her behalf. In their view, their party — and their president — should have done a better job defending a speaker who had delivered so much. “It was a wide-open season on her,” Miller said. “A lesser person would not have survived with the ability to rally her caucus and move forward. Given her accomplishments and what she achieved, from the president on down, people could have done something.”

Today’s Democrats screwed up the economic message a long time ago by adopting the Republican model, something that never works and in fact helped get us into this mess.

Meanwhile in Greece, another “bailout” freak out coming down the pipeline.

“Everybody is trying to digest how the European debt situation is going to shake out,” said Jason Pride, director of investment strategy at Glenmede in Philadelphia, which manages about $20 billion. “They’re playing an expensive game of chicken with Greece because the downside of not passing a bailout for that country is effectively a financial system meltdown.” – U.S. Stocks Fall as Concern About Europe Debt Crisis Intensifies

TM NOTE: MSNBC videos continually do not download properly, so the video has been removed.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

The Democratic ‘Leadership’ is a Bunch of Wieners


Link to Fallon’s “The Ballad of Weiner,” if NBC isn’t loading.

The media helped the Democrats put down their renegade; a man who stood up to the feckless Democratic leadership on the public option (though on Middle East policy he sucked); a man whom in the end Pelosi couldn’t touch; a man that took the President weighing in before he left. Now the media is working on his pension, which he earned.

So, let the comeback begin, just to spite all of these wieners. Though it won’t be easy, simply because Anthony Weiner resigned.

While plenty of politicians who have misbehaved —even criminally— weathered their scandals and remain in office, the comeback prospects for those who resign or abandon reelection dreams are decidedly dim. – Is There Life After Political Death?

Polling is all over the map, but I found this one particularly telling. Not even John Ensign’s scandal (seriously, if you haven’t read about it click on that link), which forced him to resign a second before expulsion, made the top of the scandal list.

Anthony Weiner’s been in the headlines lately but he’s nowhere near the top of the list of who voters think the worst politician involved in a sex scandal over the last decade and change is. That ‘honor’ goes to John Edwards who 38% of respondents said was the ‘worst person’ who had been involved in a sex scandal. Bill Clinton came in second at 21%. No one else we asked about hit double digits: Larry Craig got 8%, Mark Foley 5%, and then everyone else tied at 3%: Weiner, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, and Eliot Spitzer. – PPP

I’ll never understand sacrificing Spitzer, who should be able to rehabilitate himself.

But come on, people, you didn’t think Anthony Weiner’s resignation press conference meant he was going to crawl into a hole now, did you? The talking heads clucking about how he should have delivered a simple resignation by paper.

The whole sordid disaster is his own doing, but resigning over it was a far reach and something that reveals the Democratic Party for what it is, a self-loathing political invertebrate.

Let’s hope Mr. Weiner finds a way back into the political arena. These witch hunts have got to stop, especially those where consensual non-sexual contact is involved.

I’m reminded of something by Wayne Dyer that’s good for this moment, though I’ll paraphrase it. Do not live your life dependent on the good opinion of others and in fact, also be willing to accept disapproval, though without altering what you know you must do for yourself.

Anthony Weiner was alone in the caucus before he made a fool of himself, but at his core he should have known his real purpose and while accepting his humiliation, kept on pursuing it. Now that he’s fallen so far, there’s no time like the present to get his life back, which should include the activism that was his real passion.

“I fear that the Democratic Party is in danger of losing its identity,” Russ Feingold said at Netroots Nation. Anthony Weiner is another part of that loss.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Democratic Message Stumble isn’t Weiner’s Fault

When Democrats congregate, some lawmakers are going to argue “why are we cannibalizing ourselves,” said a senior Democratic aide. “Plus, he’s not going anywhere, so we just look like a bunch of idiots.”Democrats worry Anthony Weiner will hurt agenda

A bunch of idiots gets it exactly right.

When a leader targets one of her own she needs to hit him; on Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democratic minority leader Pelosi (and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) missed by a mile. It’s not Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s place to tell Mr. Weiner to focus on his “well being” or his family. Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz played female moralists instead of remembering their job is as political party leaders, something the men don’t forget.

As I wrote this weekend, if Democrats want a real disaster all they have to do is serve up an ethics investigation, with the results landing in the heat of the 2012 presidential race. Hoyer gets it, even as he clearly hopes Weiner will take one for the team who can’t force him to do anything.

Still, several House leaders — Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra of California — pointedly did not join the choreographed team push. None of them has directly called for Weiner to resign, though Hoyer did say Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he hopes “he would make that judgment.” – Politico

If Democratic leaders were smart, they are not, they would instead muster some discipline and a united front saying that Anthony Weiner’s personal challenges won’t keep seniors from losing Medicare. Weiner’s got a long journey to rehabilitate himself, but the Democrats job remains the same: We’re focused on the most important job we have and that’s standing up for protecting people from the Republican and Paul Ryan’s budget scheme, which threatens the safety net Americans have had since F.D.R.

It’s predictable Republicans will run ads using Weiner, but Democrats can answer those ads with the GOP’s greatest scandal hits, perhaps starting with Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani or maybe Tom Delay, even David Vitter or Mark Foley. There are innumerable options.

As for messaging, the Democratic message for 2010 under Tim Kaine was a historic disaster. Pres. Obama didn’t help, because all he could muster was compromise and capitulation on economic message that further blew out the budget and has his 2012 road looking rougher than it has before, though certainly not impossible to traverse.

Whatever problems Democrats have with messaging aren’t Anthony Weiner’s fault, however infuriating he is as a distraction, though he’s an easy scapegoat.

The Democratic problem is that in the Obama era they can’t figure out what’s worth fighting for and won’t make a case for the Democratic alternative for all things Republican.

Say what you will about Anthony Weiner he never had that problem. As one of the most prominent grandstanding politicians for Democratic ideals, though his Middle East stance is appalling, Weiner knew there was no mileage in parroting Republican economic talking points or selling out people on health care, both of which got Democrats in the ditch they’re in today long before Weiner went wild on Twitter.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Weiner Won’t Resign, Seeks Treatment, Leave of Absence from House

“Congressman Weiner departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person,” said the spokeswoman, Risa Heller. “In light of that, he will request a short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well. Congressman Weiner takes the views of his colleagues very seriously and has determined that he needs this time to get healthy and make the best decision possible for himself, his family and his constituents.” – New York Times

When I heard the words “underage 17 year-old,” then today the words from Weiner’s spokesperson that “his communications with this person were neither explicit nor indecent,” referring to the star struck teen who thinks she’s in love with the New York congressman, what came next was pretty predictable.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Weiner Should Pull a Hugh Grant and Talk to Jon Stewart

“I don’t represent the hide-under-the-desk wing of the Democratic Party.” – Rep. Anthony Weiner

Rep. Weiner was not shy or quiet about taking on Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi, whom he believed hadn’t made the case on health care strongly enough. He also told Republicans to “put up or shut up” on the necessity of health care for the country.

Democrats would be better off if more of them acted like Weiners.

As the first anniversary of the health-care law approached this week, many Democratic lawmakers went to ground, leaving unanswered Republican accusations that the legislation is socialist, unconstitutional, bankrupting the country, destroying the medical system and generally bringing about the apocalypse. But not Anthony Weiner.

Nancy Pelosi, he said, has been “inartful.” President Obama, he said, hasn’t provided “air cover” for Democrats in Congress. The White House “hasn’t done a very good job” confronting critics. The administration needs to make its case “more forcefully.” And his colleagues are limp, Weiner said: “We have to stop cowering.”

This is an independent progressive who isn’t afraid to stand up to the leaders in the Democratic Party, especially when they’re leading. That means he has very few friends right now.

From Huffington Post:

On top of that, one New York lawmaker noted that the state is about to go through a redistricting of House seats in which it will lose two districts. There would be little incentive to protect a disgraced Weiner in a district that was not drawn to protect minority voting rights. “I don’t see how anyone goes out of their way to save his district,” the legislator said.

Fighting relentlessly for the public option, Rep. Weiner said “Healthcare is not a commodity.”

I’ve read comments and tweets and also heard from quite a few people who stood up for Rep. Weiner who are hurt, bitter and angry that they walked the line for him. Anyone, including Rachel Maddow who offered a very soft interview space for him, has every right to be furious.

Ed Schultz delivered a chicken liver performance last night when he asked Rep. Weiner to resign.

That may be what happens, especially with Andrew Breitbart alleging he has an X-rated photo, as TMZ breaks wide with a story that reportedly shows Weiner aiding the porn actress to lie. There’s no doubt this is getting ugly, which is what happens when someone can’t control their compulsions and won’t admit they need help.

On Charlie Rose last night, Roger Simon went through a weird fantasy tale serving up the possibility that Rep. Weiner could have engaged with women underage, even if there’s no proof whatsoever that this happened.

But considering social media does allow for teens to fake their age, this talking point, if it catches hold, could simply add to the hysteria building.

All the while Democrats hold his fate, some of which he has tweaked over policies and party strategy, which made Rep. Weiner a fighter against the Obama machine.

When Rep. King caused the failure of a 9/11 first responder bill, Weiner’s constituents applauded him saying he “took a stand for the rescuers at 9/11.”

Rep. Weiner put himself in political peril, with his adversaries inside the Democratic Party not willing to lift a finger as the drip, drip, drip continues.

As long as David Letterman is out there it’s not going to get any easier for Anthony Weiner. Maybe he should consider pulling a Hugh Grant, only give Jon Stewart the shot, like Grant gave Leno. “What were you thinking?”, along with Weiner’s savvy, might just be the ticket.

…though with TMZ and Breitbart on Weiner’s heels it’s hard to say it’s not already too late. Hugh Grant simply propositioned a hooker in Hollywood. Rep. Weiner’s predilections aren’t that conventional, with revelations continuing to spin out.

But redemption is built into the American political fabric as long as the guilty person prostrates himself. There is life after politics, especially for he and his wife. Jon Stewart could help him get there, maybe even stop the crescendo that’s building.

With Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Steve Israel calling for an ethics investigation, Rep. Weiner needs to do something.

For my money, the work Rep. Weiner’s done to make the progressive case on policy when the Democratic Party lamely couldn’t speak out under Pres. Obama, matters a lot.

I live in the Beltway, but I’m not a creature of it and never will be, having lived from Missouri to New York to Nevada to Beverly Hills in Los Angeles and many points in between. But I know one thing: if the Obama loyalists and Beltway Dems want Weiner’s (ahem… and ugh) pound of flesh that’s exactly what they’ll likely get.

Screen capture from Huffington Post.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Progressive Infusion Amidst ‘Disgust’

Because it’s Friday and a little sanity is called for amidst the Democratic Party’s cratering to Republican economic models. It should make people understand why many progressive and Democratic activists and lawmakers have had it with Pres. Obama. Rank and file Democrats still support him, but then they don’t have the job of trying to legislate Democratic principles while the President saddles up to Republican economic models, except in campaign speeches.

Headline from the Daily Beast: Democrats’ Disgust With Obama.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, warned that the $38 billion in promised cutbacks would hurt the most vulnerable Americans. “We don’t have enough time to talk about the ways it violates our values,” he told The Daily Beast.

There is no more visible symbol of Democratic disgruntlement than the woman who was perhaps the president’s closest ally when she wielded the speaker’s gavel. When Nancy Pelosi voted against the budget measure Thursday, she did little to hide her anger with the White House over the fact that Obama, for the first time, had left her out of the negotiations on a major deal. Instead, he chose to work directly with Boehner and Reid to hammer out the compromise that each could take back to their caucuses for approval.

[...] “I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him,” one senior Democratic lawmaker said. “It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?”

But this “hot mic” moment for Obama wasn’t bad.

“I said, ‘You want to repeal healthcare? Go at it. We’ll have that debate. You’re not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we’re stupid?’”

Compliments of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a couple of screen captures from it below. Read. Discuss.

Progressive Caucus People’s Budget FY12 Memorandum
Eliminates National Deficit by 2021

Read the People’s Budget

Read The Technical Analysis and Working Paper

Presupuesto del Pueblo (Español)



Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama’s ‘Are You In?’ Question

Photo by Pete Souza

The biggest issue facing Obama’s reelection team is whether Obama’s base will show up and if they do in what numbers and with what level of enthusiasm. This is the story and why Obama embarrassingly asked “Are you in?” when he launched his reelection campaign. Not even the President and his team are quite sure of the answers.

Responding to Glenn Greenwald’s critique of “the impotence of the loyal partisan voter,” Adam Sewer accidentally reveals the problem with the Democratic base.

Democrats are less liberal than Republicans are conservative because there are fewer self-identified liberals in America. Democrats rely more on the votes of moderates, and so they can’t afford to be as strident ideologically. – Adam Sewer

While Republicans are politically certain and self-righteous, Democrats and progressives tend to be politically self-loathing.

It’s hard to know the purpose of progressives if they’re going to regurgitate the conventional media wisdom about the country and right-wing talking points about Democrats, like Sewer did, in order to make an argument against “loyal partisans” being “impotent.”

If they weren’t they would have long ago gotten fed up with Pres. Obama’s rightward lurch.

If extending the Bush tax cuts didn’t do it, then intervention into Libya should have, and if not that surely reversing his decision on military tribunals would have; that is if making private insurance deals and codifying Hyde hadn’t done it off the top. On Libya, a favorite of Democrats during George W. Bush’s imperial presidency, Bruce Fein, has prepared an article of impeachment against Pres. Obama over his decision to attack Libya, because of his own imperial overreach. It’s absolutely preposterous to imagine progressives being consistent on this anymore than they were when Pres. Obama flipped on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s civilian trial.

When Greenwald was on with Lawrence O’Donnell this past Tuesday, it was an interesting back and forth, but neither of these good gentlemen went anywhere near what progressives must do to cure their impotence. When it’s obvious that Social Security and other safety net services will be up for grabs after 2012, you’d think everyone would understand that healing progressive self-loathing is a matter of urgency, because it comes down to whether Obama gets to change the FDR legacy or a Republican does, because that’s where we’re headed right now.

Lawrence O’Donnell said the two party system is the problem.

Funny how that isn’t stopping the Republican Right from forcing Speaking Boehner to push Democrats into caving on budget cuts, or the Tea Party caucus from forcing their leaders to make deals with them.

In contrast, look what the so called congressional progressive caucus did in the months before the 2010 midterms. They acted like they had no power against Obama and Pelosi, calmly caving on health care, but also women’s rights in the bill itself, and rarely do you hear any of them rise up in complaint of Pres. Obama’s constant rightward march or, heaven forbid, refuse to support what’s being done as they ponder their own purpose, long ago forgotten.

There hasn’t been one single moment when Pres. Obama or his team were in danger of losing control of their compromise and capitulation agenda because the progressive caucus refused to cave on principle.

The Tea Party is taking progressives to school right now on the budget by showing them how it’s done. Nobody but Lawrence O’Donnell seems to realize that Pres. Obama and the Democrats have already handed the Republicans a big budget win.

More from Glenn:

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic). [...] Joan Walsh yesterday urged progressives not to organize for Obama until next year while nonetheless vowing to support his re-election, which (though well-intentioned) strikes me as merely reinforcing this dynamic. But what I do know is that Rachel’s optimistic proclamation that “only the base itself will ever change” this dynamic cannot be fulfilled without giving the Party and its leaders a true reason to pay attention or care about disenchantment (and, some day, to fear alienating their base). For those who are hopeful that this will happen, what do they envision will cause it? What would ever make Democratic Party leaders change how they view this dynamic?

I’ve been writing about this for months. That Democrats and progressives almost always come home, because the alternative is seen as worse.

But you’ve got to ask what difference it makes if progressives get Obama or the generic Republican, because they’re not going to get anything out of it either way.

The fall back answer is Supreme Court picks, but it sounds lame to me when you’re looking at the future of the Democratic Party and what it means if, more likely when, Pres. Obama takes on Social Security in order to “save it.”

In the Obama era the Democratic Party stands against the Republican Right, even as Pres. Obama’s capitulation to the Right moves the country in their direction. But what does the Democratic Party under Obama stand for and what exactly does it mean for progressives if they join Obama’s reelection team?

I haven’t a clue and no progressive yet has convinced me they do either.

At the end of Glenn’s column he asks a simple question about Obama and the Democratic Party kicking the base: What would ever make Democratic Party leaders change how they view this dynamic?

The answer is simple and everyone knows it, even if people don’t want to discuss it on TV and no politician of importance wants the role.

Democrats and progressives would have to take on Barack Obama’s imperial presidency and the Democratic Party’s enabling of it through a primary challenge. They won’t, even though their very relevancy is proved moot through their reluctance to do so.

(This column was originally posted at 7:11 a.m.)

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

One Year Later, People Still Hate the Affordability Care Act

Today begins with a declaration from the man who wants to be president, Mitt Romney.

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

That’s it, that’s all he says. An executive order is now Romney’s fig leaf over what he did in Massachusetts.

But how badly did Pres. Obama and the Democrats botch health care?

The latest from CNN:

One year after President Barack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law, a new national poll indicates that attitudes toward the plan have not budged.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, on the one year anniversary of the signing of the law, 37 percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That’s basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

And waivers abound, with Fox’s Carl Cameron reporting that Karl Rove’s “super think tank” is suing Obama over the waivers on the anniversary of the bill passing.

It all began with Pres. Obama abdicating leadership to Congress until Sarah Palin ignited the Right with her “death panels” squeal, which came shortly after Sen. Ted Kennedy’s death. This is what I wrote back in 2009 about Sarah Palin’s power in “The Divider”.

She has no office.

She has no official power.

Yet what she wrote is the talk of politics, causing crowds to rise up and shout out loud, with everyone from cable hosts to pundits to the President of the United States answering her “death panels” charge.

She may be a quitter, but it’s good to be Sarah Palin.

That’s because while the politicians are running around trying to do their job and be heard above the town hall brawlers, she weighed in on the most important issue facing this country and changed the debate with a Facebook post. Proving that dumping the governorship wasn’t all madness.

Her latest entry is a victory lap:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. … ..

Making fun of Sarah Palin is political sport, but seriously, how’d the Democrats allow this to happen? Begin a debate about health care reform only to wind up with Sarah Palin, of all people, writing the script.

In purely political terms, the unleashing of “death panels” is the Republican shot that awoke the right. It also drove Pres. Obama to address it in his town hall, with Democrats repeating the phrase everywhere, laughing at it while trying to rebut it. It stuck anyway.

Keith Olbermann reduced Eugene Robinson to reading the full quote of his article last night on his show, because Palin had truncated it.

Tell me why everyone’s running around responding to Palin’s Facebook page? Because what she’s hoisting into the ether is so potentially damaging they have to. That’s how upside down everything is at this point.

In a Rovian turn of political cynicism, Palin blasted on Facebook one of the most divisively offensive statements that could be made in a health care debate, writing about “death panels” and implying that Trig, her son with Down Syndrome”, would have to stand before one. The gargantuan nerve it takes to launch a lie so ludicrously unbelievable reveals such heinous disregard for reality and facts you’ve got to wonder if she’s sane.

But then you watch the unraveling, the unleashing of the fury in the town halls we witnessed from Specter to McCaskill and beyond, wondering what spell was weaved over an already agitated American right wing who upon hearing “death panels” with “euthanasia” on top came completely unglued.

She took to Facebook a couple of days ago to push harder on “death panels”, taking her argument straight at Pres. Obama.

The New York Times is running a story about who started the rumor and the roots of it. No one should be surprised the same actors were around during the Clinton days, but the fact that American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, former New York Attorney General, an opponent of Hillarycare as well, is at the center hardly matters amidst the noise. McCaughey’s July article “Deadly Doctor”, on Rahm Emanuel’s father, cynically uses health care cost savings to scare the crap out of seniors. No one ever said Palin was in this alone.

The New York Times scolds critics of Dr. Emanuel saying…

But Dr. Emanuel’s paper does not quite say what Ms. Palin claims it does. Rather, it is an exploration of how scarce resources – like organs or vaccines during a pandemic – can be morally allocated when not enough resources are available.

Sober analysis that hardly comforts, which is why Palin’s pack sees a target.

The bit player in all this, Chuck Grassley, told an audience that he had to stay involved long enough so that the grass roots could organize, get on TV and make their stand. He said that if he hadn’t stayed in the debate in Washington there would have been a health care bill in June. Serving as a double agent while spinning bipartisan baloney, Obama buying in regardless, Grassley now says the end-of-life counseling is out in the Senate, as far as he’s concerned, which as is shown in Palin’s latest Facebook post, she takes as her win.

Howard Dean made a good case on “Countdown” that Grassley doesn’t decide and Republicans are digging themselves a hole, which others also believe. I’m not so sure.

A person everyone has judged isn’t national office material managed to cause a ruckus and change the dynamics of debate, getting Pres. Obama to respond to what she’d unleashed in writing that ricocheted across America. Palin forcing the President to answer her, because she’s backed by thousands and thousands of the furious loaded for bear with grievances.

All of this because of what was written by a woman who doesn’t hold office or any spot of power and doesn’t care about dividing America, because in the world from where she hails Sarah Palin already sees America divided. It’s also in her interest to keep it that way.

For that matter, the only hope Republicans have is division and defeating anything Obama that now is symbolized, at least for them, by “death panels,” which has less to do with health care and actual “death panels” than it does the intrusion of government in our lives, that old standard of the right rising from the ashes.

All this started by a woman who can’t be president. Of course, she doesn’t know she can’t be president. But for now it doesn’t really matter. She’s the star of her own “death panel” realty show. And it’s a huge hit.

The only thing more unpopular and polarizing than Obama’s Affordability Care Act is the woman who helped scuttle Democratic efforts to make it successful.

That’s cold comfort, because with a Democratic majority the Democrats could have really made a historic difference in people’s lives. Instead Pres. Obama chose to simply swing for a presidential accomplishment by selling out to private insurance companies and sticking people into a monopolized system.

That Pres. Obama and the first female Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also chose to codify the Hyde Amendment into law is an unspeakable thing for Democrats to have done.

All of this reveals where the Democratic Party stands today, even as Republicans look even worse.

The Republican incumbents in these districts, 35 of them freshmen, remain largely unknown and appear very vulnerable in 2012 (depending on redistricting). In fact, these incumbents are in a weaker position than Democratic incumbents were even in late 2009, or Republican incumbents were in 2007 in comparable surveys conducted by Democracy Corps.

[...] More importantly at this early point, just 40 percent of voters in these districts say that they will vote to reelect their incumbent (asked by name in each district), while 45 percent say that they “can’t vote to reelect” the incumbent.

As for we the people, our political choices suck.

If Obama and the Democrats would have at least fought for the public option we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Repeat Lawrence O’Donnell here. Some things are worth fighting for even if you lose.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Forget Unemployment, the War on Women is the Right’s Job One

The House of Representatives has been cutting like crazy! Down with Planned Parenthood and PBS! We can’t afford to worry about mercury contamination! Safety nets are too expensive! But keep your hands off the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar racers. – Gail Collins

Yo, Cecile Richards. I told you so.

This is what happens when organizations allow the Right an inch.

Planned Parenthood cannot use any federal funds for abortions services. Pence’s legislation denies funding for HIV testing and other services, but was drawn up because the Right doesn’t like what Planned Parenthood does beyond their federal funding, which is to provide abortion services.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama aided this move rightward on women’s health care when they legitimized Stupak-Pitts, with the President signing an Executive Order to legitimize the move to codify the Hyde Amendment in law.

During the health care debate Ms. Richards said she had no problems with the Democratic compromise on women’s freedoms, as Blue Dog Dems applauded the moves.

You had to either be an idiot, born yesterday, a Blue Dog, or a man to fall for what the Democrats did to women in the health care law.

On the other side you have the Live Action hoax targeting Planned Parenthood, which helped stoke Rep. Pence, all of it a carefully planned assault that culminated in the House vote. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, the Right’s success will have repercussions going forward; we’ll see a lot more of Mike Pence, for one thing.

Rep. Jerry Nadler called what Pence and his allies did a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional.

“Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat all of what has been said about the Republican war on women, about the fact that the Republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is a war on various social services and women and nothing about jobs. But I am going to say this: I have been listening very carefully to the supporters of this amendment, to Mr. Pence and others, and what do I hear? I hear that we must punish Planned Parenthood by defunding them because they have committed a number of sins.

“Sin Number 1 – they perform abortions. They are a very large abortion provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for with federal funds – that is prohibited under the Hyde amendment, however you read it – ‘we don’t like Planned Parenthood because they are a large abortion provider.’

[...] “A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization who is named or is identifiable, by legislative action is called a bill of attainder. That is the definition of a bill of attainder: A legislative punishment, penalty, a legislative penalty, a legislative-enacted penalty – in this case, no funding – directed at some identifiable person or organization to punish them for something.

“Article I, Section 9 says, ‘No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed’ – a fundamental foundation of constitutional law.

It doesn’t matter what happens in the courts later.

The Right is winning on their war against women and Democrats helped them do it starting with empowering Stupak-Pitts during the health care debate, even if now these same Democrats are finally getting a clue.

The Right’s War On Women

Yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) blasted the Republican “anti-woman, anti-child agenda.” Noting that Republicans have yet to bring up any legislation aimed at tackling the jobs crisis, she added, “[Republicans] have had time to bring forward an extreme anti-woman agenda.” This assault has been aided and abetted in recent weeks by anti-choicers at the state level as well, and by slick public relations campaigns aimed to convince Americans of the evils of abortion providers. The right is not only targeting abortion services, but also other essential services that provide contraception and other family planning services and programs that provide food and nutrition for many women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. If opponents of choice get their way, it will leave women nowhere to turn — nowhere to get essential family planning services, nowhere to get an abortion, and nowhere to get support once they are pregnant.

A SWIFT ATTACK: Republicans took 18 statehouses in the midterm elections, and strengthened their hold in many others. Fifteen states now have completely anti-abortion governments, which is five more than existed last year. In just the past few weeks, the assault on women’s rights has been swift and stunning. GOP state lawmakers in Arizona and Ohio unveiled so-called “Heartbeat Bills” to “prohibit women from ending pregnancies at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.” The heartbeat can be heard “within 18 to 24 days of conception” and “in almost all cases by six weeks” — a period in which “many women don’t even know they’re pregnant.” By dubbing it an “emergency item,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) “fast-tracked” a bill mandating that “pregnant women be shown an ultrasound of the fetus at least two hours before an abortion.” In Kentucky, the state senate also passed a law requiring doctors to show women an ultrasound before an abortion — and if she chooses to avert her eyes, the doctor must describe the image to her. Doctors face a $250,000 fine if they fail to do so, and in Montana, a Republican legislator introduced a bill that would have doctors arrested if they don’t show women an ultrasound. These ultrasound laws rarely result in women changing their mind, but rather “add to the pain of an already difficult decision.” Most shockingly, as Mother Jones reported yesterday, a South Dakota statehouse committee passed a bill that would change the state’s justifiable homicide laws to allow murder in defense of an unborn child’s life — “an invitation to murder abortion providers,” says Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation. This is shocking, especially in light of the long history of violence against abortion providers. Most recently, George Tiller, an abortion provider and frequent target of anti-abortion activists, was shot dead in his church in May 2009 by a man with ties to the state’s anti-abortion movement.

STATE RESTRICTIONS: Reproductive rights have long been under assault at the state level. Numerous restrictions on abortion already exist. For example, more than half of the states (32) prohibit state funding for abortions, except for in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. Four states actually prohibit private insurance from covering abortions except when the woman’s life is threatened and that number may soon increase. Twenty-four states require a waiting period for women before an abortion, usually 24 hours, meaning they must make two trips to the abortion clinic. This is a significant barrier for women seeking abortions in states like South Dakota, which has only one abortion clinic. Eighteen states require biased “counseling” for women seeking an abortion, and providers are often forced to tell women about a purported (and completely false) link between breast cancer and abortion (6 states), or about the supposed ability of a fetus to feel pain (10 states), or about alleged “long-term mental health consequences for the woman” (7 states). In this context, recent legislative assaults that further target abortion access are all the more reprehensible.

IN WASHINGTON: Federal funding for abortion is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, which denies insurance coverage for abortion to women enrolled in government programs. The amendment is unfair to women’s health needs, and in particular, the needs of poor women and minorities, since they are most likely to be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs for health insurance. As Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights program at the Center for American Progress, wrote recently: “The Hyde Amendment is a policy that not only violates reproductive rights and principles of gender equity but one that undermines racial and economic justice as well.” Unfortunately, President Obama signed an executive order that applies the Hyde Amendment to the recent health care reforms, including the private plans purchased on health insurance exchanges. But that wasn’t enough for Republicans in Congress, who have devoted far more time to further restricting abortion access than on legislation to address the unemployment crisis. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 3 early in the 112th Congress, which would not only make the Hyde Amendment permanent, but expand many of the restrictions on federal funding and coverage for abortions. This is the bill that now infamously tried to redefine rape so that only “forcible rape” victims could be exempt from Hyde Amendment provisions. H.R. 358, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), would make it almost impossible for women to get private insurance coverage of abortions through the health care exchanges created by the recent health care reforms, but would also let public hospitals refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when necessary to save a woman’s life. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) this week introduced an amendment to the continuing resolution, which funds the government, that would prohibit any federal money from going to Planned Parenthood of America for women’s health services, gynecological exams, access to birth control, HIV testing, private care, or infertility counseling. The continuing resolution proposed by Republicans also slashes or eliminates funding for many programs crucial to women’s health: it would completely eliminate the Title X domestic family planning programs, and would also dramatically cut, by $758 million, the Women Infant Children (WIC) program, which provides food for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women. The Republican CR proposal also includes a $210 million cut in Maternal and Child Health block grants.

THE PUBLIC FRONT: This brutal assault on women’s rights is being carried out with the help of a slick — but deceptive — public relations effort by many leading right-wing news outlets. Last month, members of the group Live Action dressed as a pimp and prostitute, and surreptitiously recorded several visits to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country as they asked for help with health exams and abortions for supposedly underage prostitutes. Planned Parenthood alerted federal authorities to a possible child prostitution ring, and there’s no evidence in the tapes that Planned Parenthood planned to enable the fake pimp’s plot. The tapes are also heavily edited, which is not surprising given the group is closely tied to the disgraced Andrew Breitbart, who published their findings on his site. Nevertheless, Fox News has breathlessly taken up the allegations. Pence quickly used the videos to justify his attempt to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, saying, “Every American should be shocked that an employee of the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X has been recorded aiding and abetting underage sex trafficking.” A story last month about a Philadelphia abortion clinic that was performing illegal late-term abortions — the doctor was charged with murder and infanticide of viable fetuses — was quickly used by the right-wing to justify its anti-abortion hysteria. Popular blogger Michelle Malkin breathlessly told readers of the “mass murder” done by the “serial baby killer” and his “abortion clinic death squad.” As it turns out, however, the clinic was purposely de-regulated by a Republican Pennsylvania governor years earlier and was operating as a quasi-underground operation. Far from proving that providing abortions is dangerous, the Philadelphia case illustrates what happens when women are driven to desperate measures due to policies like the Hyde Amendment, and would happen more broadly if the anti-choice agenda were successful: abortions will only be available at underground, unregulated, and dangerous clinics.

If you don’t think so then you either haven’t been paying attention or are a useful idiot.


This is a compilation post originally posted at The Moderate Voice; comments closed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Queer Talk: Conversations that never seem to ENDA

President Obama’s response to a press conference question about his budget, and why it doesn’t include many of the recommendations of his bipartisan fiscal commission, has received a good bit of attention: “you guys are pretty impatient. … I’ve had this conversation for the last two years about every single issue that we’ve worked on, whether it was health care or ‘don’t ask/don’t tell.”

He made the queer connection for me. The “just be patient” response from Electeds to constituents is familiar: The timing isn’t right. Wait until after the election. We’ll get to you, promise. Be patient.

GetEqual’s “ENDA Timeline: Broken Promises,” is a good example. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act hasn’t received as much attention in the last few years as DADT or DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), though there have been organizations, and even a few Electeds, working on it.

A February 10, 2011 article, “The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality,” by Equality Matters’ Kerry Eleveld, includes this, regarding ENDA: “My own personal experience of talking to reasonably well-informed straight allies is that many have no idea people can still be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation in 29 states or that transgender individuals can be fired in 38 states.”

That’s my experience, too. For an extensive compilation of the ENDA process, see “ENDA Timeline” at GetEqual.

This is a selective overview (brackets enclose my summaries; bold added):

March 14, 1974 – … Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY) and Rep. Ed Koch (D-NY) introduce H.R. 14752, dubbed the “gay rights bill”… but it fails to make it out of committee.

[1975 version fails.]

[1994 & 1995 - ENDA introduced; fails to get out of committee]

Sept. 10, 1996 – … Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the lead sponsor of ENDA, struck a deal with Senate Republican leaders to allow ENDA to come up for a vote only if Kennedy and his Democratic allies agreed to end a filibuster blocking a vote on … DOMA. On the same day the Senate narrowly defeated ENDA, it passed DOMA by a vote of 85 to 14. …

1997 – Another version of ENDA is introduced … fails to make it out of committee.

1999 – The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force becomes the first gay civil rights organization to stop work on ENDA because of its lack of a transgender provision. ENDA reintroduced, again without transgender protections, fails to make it out of committee.

[2002 – 2003 – A hearing, a committee, nothing to the floor for a vote ]

2006 - During midterm elections, Democrats and the Democratic Leadership once again promise to make passage of ENDA a top priority. …

[April 24, 2007 – inclusive ENDA introduced in House. September 26, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announces he doesn’t have the votes to pass an inclusive, recommends gay-only version.]

[Week of October 5, 2007 - 150 state and national gay groups sign a statement demanding members of Congress oppose any non-inclusive version of ENDA.]

[From October 10 – 24, various statements and actions, including The House Committee on Education & Labor approving a gay-only ENDA; House postpones promised non-inclusive ENDA vote.]

Week of Oct. 31, 2007 - … Freshman House Democrats reportedly urge Pelosi not to allow Baldwin to introduce her (inclusive) amendment in fear that voting on it will hurt their re-election efforts. …

November 7, 2007 – House passes non-inclusive ENDA 235 to 184, five days before end of session with no vote taken or scheduled in the Senate – effectively rendering it dead.

June 26, 2008 – Congress holds groundbreaking hearing on gender identity issues. …

[ 2009 - Inclusive-ENDA bill introduced in the House and Senate; House committee hearings held; mark-up postponed indefinitely, with staffer saying it will be “rescheduled after Thanksgiving holiday.” It wasn’t.]

March 23, 2010 – … Frank says … a vote on ENDA “may not come this week” afterall (sic), but he “expects a votes as soon as they come back” from recess on April 9. …

April 1, 2010 – (Activist) David Mixner sends out a warning … “Democratic leaders begged us to wait until after healthcare was successfully passed. … But now they are telling us … they used up all their ‘chits and clout’ with healthcare and now is not the time …”

May 10, 2010 – The whip count on ENDA enters its fifth week, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, respond[ed] to complaints from moderate lawmakers who question the political wisdom of pushing gay rights bills in a difficult election year”

May 13, 2010 – Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) … chief whip for the Blue Dog Coalition says, (of) ENDA, “I don’t think they should bring it up, first, let’s get our fiscal house in order.”

[May 17, 2010 – Pelosi tells community leaders it’s “literally impossible,” for scheduling reasons, to take a vote on DADT and ENDA in the same week.]

May 21, 2010 – … Frank says that ENDA will be delayed until late June or mid-July because of the planned upcoming vote on the compromise repeal of DADT.

July 1, 2010 - Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) says, when asked whether the House would vote on ENDA this year, “The rest of the year is in question. ENDA, we will have that law for sure within the next five years.”

July 24, 2010 – [Pelosi asked at Netroots Nation about ENDA] Regarding timing of the passage of ENDA … “I can’t give you a time. But I can tell you that it is a priority and it had been our hope to do it this year. We have to finish Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and hopefully we can do both this year.

Electeds to Queerdom: We’ll do it! We’re working on it! We’re trying. We hope. … Okay, too late this year, but we’ll get to it right after the elections! Don’t forget to vote for me … not that you have another option.

1974 to 2011 – someday, perhaps fairly soon, it will ENDA, but please, no lectures about being patient.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Pence Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Passes House

A longtime anti-abortion crusader, Pence has three times previously tried to cut off legislative funding, called Title X, for any group that provides abortions. The money cannot be used to pay for abortions, and Pence has not argued that Planned Parenthood has used the funds to do so. But he argues that cutting off support for millions of women’s health clinics would cut off their ability to perform the procedure. “We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of [Title X] federal funding,” he said. – POLITICO

Yo, Cecil Richards. I told you so.

This is what happens when organizations allow the Right an inch.

Planned Parenthood cannot use any federal funds for abortions services. Pence’s legislation denies funding for HIV testing and other services, but was drawn up because the Right doesn’t like what Planned Parenthood does beyond their federal funding, which is to provide abortion services.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama aided this move rightward on women’s health care when they legitimized Stupak-Pitts, with the President signing an Executive Order to legitimize the move to codify the Hyde Amendment in law.

During the health care debate Ms. Richards said she had no problems with the Democratic compromise on women’s freedoms, as Blue Dog Dems applauded the moves.

You had to either be an idiot, born yesterday, a Blue Dog, or a man to fall for what the Democrats did to women in the health care law.

On the other side you have the Live Action hoax targeting Planned Parenthood, which helped stoke Rep. Pence, all of it a carefully planned assault that culminated in the House vote today. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, the Right’s success today will have repercussions going forward; we’ll see a lot more of Mike Pence, for one thing.

Rep. Jerry Nadler called what Pence and his allies did a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional. His remarks are below.

“Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat all of what has been said about the Republican war on women, about the fact that the Republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is a war on various social services and women and nothing about jobs. But I am going to say this: I have been listening very carefully to the supporters of this amendment, to Mr. Pence and others, and what do I hear? I hear that we must punish Planned Parenthood by defunding them because they have committed a number of sins.

“Sin Number 1 – they perform abortions. They are a very large abortion provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for with federal funds – that is prohibited under the Hyde amendment, however you read it – ‘we don’t like Planned Parenthood because they are a large abortion provider.’

“Number two – ‘we don’t like Planned Parenthood because they have committed allegedly various terrible things.’ Some provocateurs went into their offices and said that they were representing sex workers and they were offered services, and any organization that is willing to do this should not get federal funds.

“We are going to punish Planned Parenthood, number one, because they are a large abortion provider and we don’t like abortion providers; and, number two, because they do other things which, if in fact they do, which I don’t think they do, but if in fact they do, they are bad things.

“There is a major problem with this. There is a major problem with this rhetoric and with this reasoning. And, by the way, the CR to which this is an amendment eliminates Title X family planning funding anyway, so it will eliminate most of the funds that go to Planned Parenthood. But whatever funds that are available, they can go to other people to provide those services, not Planned Parenthood, because ‘we don’t like Planned Parenthood for various reasons.’

“A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization who is named or is identifiable, by legislative action is called a bill of attainder. That is the definition of a bill of attainder: A legislative punishment, penalty, a legislative penalty, a legislative-enacted penalty – in this case, no funding – directed at some identifiable person or organization to punish them for something.

“Article I, Section 9 says, ‘No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed’ – a fundamental foundation of constitutional law.

“If Planned Parenthood or anybody else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that is up to the courts. If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is trafficking with sex traffickers, let them be prosecuted. If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal, let them be prosecuted. Let the organization be prosecuted. Let the individual employees who are doing these things be prosecuted at law. That is our system. But you don’t punish an organization because they are doing something of which you don’t approve.

“Now, if you want to say we don’t think that there ought to be any contraceptive services in the United States and therefore we are going to have no Title X funding, the CR does say that. I don’t agree with it, but it is constitutional. But, to say that if we have Title X funding, if we have maternal services funding, none of it can go to Planned Parenthood, it can go to somebody else, but not Planned Parenthood, that is a legislatively enacted punishment because Planned Parenthood is or is allegedly doing things of which you don’t approve.

“Now, I heard a lot at the beginning of this Congress about how we have to make sure that we adhere to the Constitution. This is a bill of attainder, because it is a legislatively enacted punishment of a named organization because that organization is doing things, or is allegedly doing things, of which we don’t approve.

“So I submit that, in addition to all the other reasons why this shouldn’t be done that have been enacted here, this is flatly unconstitutional, and I challenge anyone to say how this is not a bill of attainder. Again, the black letter definition of a bill of attainder is a legislatively enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that is identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they have done various things, provided abortions, done illegal things or otherwise.

“So, in addition to all the other problems, this amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass.”

It doesn’t matter what happens in the courts later.

Today the Right won and Democrats helped them do it.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Debbie Schlussel, and the American Right’s War Against Women

I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM. Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about. – Debbie Schlussel

Ms. Schlussel uses Ms. Logan’s horrific sexual assault to target Islam, but also the professional war correspondent herself.

A “‘revolution’ by animals” is how Schlussel describes the Egyptian sacking of Hosni Mubarak.

Women working and covering dangerous parts of the globe have been under attack for a long time. What Schlussel won’t acknowledge, even ignores as she does today, is the recent report that the Pentagon turned a “blind eye to rape victims” in our own military.

Mary Gallagher, a former sergeant in the Air National Guard, says that within weeks of being deployed to an air base outside of Baghdad in 2009 she was brutally assaulted by a fellow sergeant who burst into the ladies’ room, pushed her up against the wall, pulled her pants and underwear down and ground his genitals against her, talking the whole time how much he was enjoying it.

“I thought he was going to kill me that night,” Gallagher told NBC in an interview. “I felt completely isolated and alone and really scared. Here I was, in the middle of a foreign country in the middle of a war.”

When she reported the attack, she says her commander’s only response was to reassign her assailant and tell her “this stuff happens.”

Concerned Women for America’s answer is to take women out of the military, with Schlussel suggesting that if Logan is going to cover Egyptian “animals,” she’s going to get what she deserves, which evidently is a brutal and sustained sexual assault.

The men who attacked Ms. Logan are indeed animals, as are the pro-Mubarak thugs that caused the violence during the uprisings, as are the men who raped the women cited in the Pentagon lawsuit. But the Egyptian youth movement and the peaceful demonstration we all witnessed is why Logan was in Egypt, because the history of world freedom movements means nothing without the voice of women. This is lost on the American Right and people like Schlussel.

Remember Andrew Breitbart invoking the gang rape of Jodie Foster in “The Accused” in a Tweet, referring to “lefties”?

The American Right doesn’t take violence against women seriously, because they don’t take women’s freedoms seriously, which include choosing careers as foreign correspondents and soldiers in a dangerous world. Theses challenges become even more daunting in misogynistic cultures where women are second or third class citizens.

Schlussel’s conclusion is that Logan has only herself to blame for her own rape and beating, because she was in the land of Arabs and Islam, which is no place for a Western woman to be on assignment. In fact, if you want to have a discussion about the casualties of war, women would agree that their plight and challenge is important to discuss. However, that’s not Schlussel’s intent. It is instead to foment trouble and inflame anti-Islamic sentiments through her Islamophobic hallucinations.

The men who brutally sexually attacked Lara Logan were not only caught up in the wilding of the moment, but escalated the anti-journalism fervor that had been going on in Egypt for days. That Lara Logan is a beautiful blonde made her a prime target, with the security CBS News provided nowhere near matching the moment.

Schlussel’s anti-feminist, anti-Islamic ravings would be an affront if we also weren’t seeing this type of right-wing lunacy on Fox News through Glenn Beck and right-wing radio every day.

In legislation, the American Right is attacking the foundation of women’s freedoms in America, which are being assaulted in states across the country, the latest in South Dakota.

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

Religious fanatics target women’s health care doctors every day. Dr. Tiller was martyred because of his belief in women’s freedoms. That wasn’t Islam at work. It was American religious fundamentalism that was the cause.

The late moral crusader whose Hyde Amendment has been the humiliation of the Democratic Party, Rep. Henry Hyde, another right-wing adulterer, impeached Pres. Clinton on the wings of a culture war. Hyde admitted this himself in an interview with Paul Gigot.

The notion that women must be kept away from the world breaking free in the Mideast, instead of the demanding the world game up and shift to make a safe place for women and the role of people like Logan in telling the stories, never seems to dawn on people like Schlussel who is at war against all of Islam, all Muslims, through her Islamaphobic ravings.

A startling development since the rise of Sarah Palin’s anti-feminism and the Right’s power to take on women’s freedoms is that the zealotry of misogyny is being reinvigorated.

Women’s fundamental freedoms are being threatened in America again today, with Lara Logan’s assault providing a symbol of what women breaking barriers into a man’s world are experiencing every day to one degree or another. Changing the world is dangerous, but women are going to be there to report it.

The alarming reality is that as Logan and other females stake their claims on the world, here at home the American Right is targeting women in a way that hasn’t been seen since the ’70s, after Roe v. Wade. But this time it’s not just Roe they’re after, it’s the very notion of privacy through Griswold, which was always the primary target.

The Democratic Party opened this door when Speaker Nancy Pelosi made Rep. Stupak a hero of the anti-women’s movement, while Pres. Obama went even further by suggesting the Hyde Amendment should be codified in law.

Is freedom just for men? In the Middle East, depending on the country, power is only for men, with women’s freedoms beginning to find a way through in fits and starts, though you can bet the Muslim Brotherhood will not campaign on that platform. As for women’s freedom in America today, it depends on what state you live in.

The Right’s War On Women

Yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) blasted the Republican “anti-woman, anti-child agenda.” Noting that Republicans have yet to bring up any legislation aimed at tackling the jobs crisis, she added, “[Republicans] have had time to bring forward an extreme anti-woman agenda.” This assault has been aided and abetted in recent weeks by anti-choicers at the state level as well, and by slick public relations campaigns aimed to convince Americans of the evils of abortion providers. The right is not only targeting abortion services, but also other essential services that provide contraception and other family planning services and programs that provide food and nutrition for many women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. If opponents of choice get their way, it will leave women nowhere to turn — nowhere to get essential family planning services, nowhere to get an abortion, and nowhere to get support once they are pregnant.

A SWIFT ATTACK: Republicans took 18 statehouses in the midterm elections, and strengthened their hold in many others. Fifteen states now have completely anti-abortion governments, which is five more than existed last year. In just the past few weeks, the assault on women’s rights has been swift and stunning. GOP state lawmakers in Arizona and Ohio unveiled so-called “Heartbeat Bills” to “prohibit women from ending pregnancies at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.” The heartbeat can be heard “within 18 to 24 days of conception” and “in almost all cases by six weeks” — a period in which “many women don’t even know they’re pregnant.” By dubbing it an “emergency item,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) “fast-tracked” a bill mandating that “pregnant women be shown an ultrasound of the fetus at least two hours before an abortion.” In Kentucky, the state senate also passed a law requiring doctors to show women an ultrasound before an abortion — and if she chooses to avert her eyes, the doctor must describe the image to her. Doctors face a $250,000 fine if they fail to do so, and in Montana, a Republican legislator introduced a bill that would have doctors arrested if they don’t show women an ultrasound. These ultrasound laws rarely result in women changing their mind, but rather “add to the pain of an already difficult decision.” Most shockingly, as Mother Jones reported yesterday, a South Dakota statehouse committee passed a bill that would change the state’s justifiable homicide laws to allow murder in defense of an unborn child’s life — “an invitation to murder abortion providers,” says Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation. This is shocking, especially in light of the long history of violence against abortion providers. Most recently, George Tiller, an abortion provider and frequent target of anti-abortion activists, was shot dead in his church in May 2009 by a man with ties to the state’s anti-abortion movement.

STATE RESTRICTIONS: Reproductive rights have long been under assault at the state level. Numerous restrictions on abortion already exist. For example, more than half of the states (32) prohibit state funding for abortions, except for in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. Four states actually prohibit private insurance from covering abortions except when the woman’s life is threatened and that number may soon increase. Twenty-four states require a waiting period for women before an abortion, usually 24 hours, meaning they must make two trips to the abortion clinic. This is a significant barrier for women seeking abortions in states like South Dakota, which has only one abortion clinic. Eighteen states require biased “counseling” for women seeking an abortion, and providers are often forced to tell women about a purported (and completely false) link between breast cancer and abortion (6 states), or about the supposed ability of a fetus to feel pain (10 states), or about alleged “long-term mental health consequences for the woman” (7 states). In this context, recent legislative assaults that further target abortion access are all the more reprehensible.

IN WASHINGTON: Federal funding for abortion is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, which denies insurance coverage for abortion to women enrolled in government programs. The amendment is unfair to women’s health needs, and in particular, the needs of poor women and minorities, since they are most likely to be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs for health insurance. As Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights program at the Center for American Progress, wrote recently: “The Hyde Amendment is a policy that not only violates reproductive rights and principles of gender equity but one that undermines racial and economic justice as well.” Unfortunately, President Obama signed an executive order that applies the Hyde Amendment to the recent health care reforms, including the private plans purchased on health insurance exchanges. But that wasn’t enough for Republicans in Congress, who have devoted far more time to further restricting abortion access than on legislation to address the unemployment crisis. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 3 early in the 112th Congress, which would not only make the Hyde Amendment permanent, but expand many of the restrictions on federal funding and coverage for abortions. This is the bill that now infamously tried to redefine rape so that only “forcible rape” victims could be exempt from Hyde Amendment provisions. H.R. 358, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), would make it almost impossible for women to get private insurance coverage of abortions through the health care exchanges created by the recent health care reforms, but would also let public hospitals refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when necessary to save a woman’s life. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) this week introduced an amendment to the continuing resolution, which funds the government, that would prohibit any federal money from going to Planned Parenthood of America for women’s health services, gynecological exams, access to birth control, HIV testing, private care, or infertility counseling. The continuing resolution proposed by Republicans also slashes or eliminates funding for many programs crucial to women’s health: it would completely eliminate the Title X domestic family planning programs, and would also dramatically cut, by $758 million, the Women Infant Children (WIC) program, which provides food for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women. The Republican CR proposal also includes a $210 million cut in Maternal and Child Health block grants.

THE PUBLIC FRONT: This brutal assault on women’s rights is being carried out with the help of a slick — but deceptive — public relations effort by many leading right-wing news outlets. Last month, members of the group Live Action dressed as a pimp and prostitute, and surreptitiously recorded several visits to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country as they asked for help with health exams and abortions for supposedly underage prostitutes. Planned Parenthood alerted federal authorities to a possible child prostitution ring, and there’s no evidence in the tapes that Planned Parenthood planned to enable the fake pimp’s plot. The tapes are also heavily edited, which is not surprising given the group is closely tied to the disgraced Andrew Breitbart, who published their findings on his site. Nevertheless, Fox News has breathlessly taken up the allegations. Pence quickly used the videos to justify his attempt to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, saying, “Every American should be shocked that an employee of the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X has been recorded aiding and abetting underage sex trafficking.” A story last month about a Philadelphia abortion clinic that was performing illegal late-term abortions — the doctor was charged with murder and infanticide of viable fetuses — was quickly used by the right-wing to justify its anti-abortion hysteria. Popular blogger Michelle Malkin breathlessly told readers of the “mass murder” done by the “serial baby killer” and his “abortion clinic death squad.” As it turns out, however, the clinic was purposely de-regulated by a Republican Pennsylvania governor years earlier and was operating as a quasi-underground operation. Far from proving that providing abortions is dangerous, the Philadelphia case illustrates what happens when women are driven to desperate measures due to policies like the Hyde Amendment, and would happen more broadly if the anti-choice agenda were successful: abortions will only be available at underground, unregulated, and dangerous clinics.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Is Rick Santorum the Dumbest White Man on the Right?



Former Senator Rick Santorum: “The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person, human life is not a person, then, I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

What the purpose of Santorum invoking “black man” is you can decipher for yourself, but being brought up in racially charged St. Louis, Missouri it’s obvious to me.

Segue to a story that sickens everyone who reads it to the core, but will surely be used by wingnuts like Rick Santorum. The story of the Philadelphia clinic of Kermit Goswell that is detailed in a 261-page grand-jury report released yesterday and getting covered today, which is too murderously reprehensible and morally criminal to even quote here. What Goswell let happen at his abortion mill is the stuff of horror movies, not what any reputable woman’s clinic would do.

The question needs to be asked just why women were resorting to going to Kermit Goswell? For the same reason women rose up to make abortion legal and safe, but also affordable and accessible. People like Rick Santorum and others who rail against women’s freedoms, but also the murder of Dr. Tiller, has caused an atmosphere of fear to develop around women’s reproductive health issues, which even had an impact on the Democratic health care bill recently passed. By letting people like Bart Stupak win, Speaker Pelosi, of all people, and Pres. Obama helped conservatives, in whatever party they exist, push women into a situation on health care even in the face of what we’ve won in the courts. Making abortion coverage a separate entity to full reproductive health care that requires separate coverage and payment simply shrinks the pool so small that pretty soon the coverage and the care will be non-existent. This is the type of situation that makes places like Goswell’s develop in the first place. The other issue is regulations and having enough people to enforce them so that untrained hacks aren’t utilized during a serious operation requiring anesthesia.

But you can be sure that Pennsylvania’s alleged multiple murder horror will launch the nuts like Santorum and the Right into a campaign that will only make matters worse for women.

Perhaps he’s on Randall Terry’s bandwagon, the guy who wants to run against Obama on the “Freedom is Only for Men Ticket,” aka “The Bible Is Literal Platform,” trying to out Tebow Tebow by running an offensive ad during the Super Bowl.

Seriously, can we all agree that politics and sports slammed together is just plain un-American?

So, the answer to the headline is no, Santorum has lots of company on crazy.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Inspires Breitbart to Invoke Gang Rape

–updated below–



No one should be surprised that Andrew Breitbart would equate deserved criticism of former governor Sarah Palin with gang rape. This is the type of hate speech from the Right, especially towards women, that is common. Remember their depictions of Speaker Pelosi, Hillary Clinton before she became secretary of state?

Unfortunately, the criticism is wide and deep and includes conservatives, as well as Jewish leaders:

“Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a ‘blood libel’ against her and others,” said David Harris, president of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in a statement. “This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.”

From USA Today, (h/t SecyClintonBlog):

Rabbi Irwin Kula observes,

She is probably ignorant of its history as many people are of inflammatory expressions that get into our common culture’s vernacular. What it does indicate is something far sadder and of greater concern. Sarah Palin’s use of this term “blood libel” indicates that she sees herself as the victim this week. This is a profoundly distorted experience of reality that any sane person in this country from left to far right should see given that the true victims, the six Americans murdered have not yet even even been buried yet and fourteen other victims lie wounded in hospitals recovering.

Kula even wonders whether the phrase came to her because,

… at some level, unconsciously, she feels guilty in some way for what has happened. But this is so painful at an unconscious level that she has disassociated and lashed out accusing others of what is a deep self-judgment. This is sad, as she is not responsible at all for the shootings in Arizona. She is simply, along with all of us who have created her, responsible for the coarsening of our public culture at a time when we are facing historic challenges that cut to the very core of what America will be in the next period of history.

The victimhood mentality of Sarah Palin seems to be the only position, a permanent crouch, from which she can operate, so she can be prepared at any moment to pounce, to attack.

Mrs. Palin could have simply come out to say that going forward she was going to be more diligent in her use of language and anything else that could be used to incite violence. But no.

To Palin fans, I was fair to Sarah Palin right up until the moment I rendered much deserved criticism. Just one response:

Taylor you are a low life to talk the way you do and have a hatred for Sarah Palin.  All this talk about the right, bull shit!!!! The hatred is on the left.  Sarah thinks different than you do and is winning with her way of thinking with the American people and boy does that piss you off.

Barbara Lay
Houston, TX

Delusional people like Ms. Lay and other Palin devotees didn’t read about the Republicans who resigned in Arizona:

Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.

Then there is Joe Wilson ‘You Lie’ Slogan Etched Onto Line Of Assault Rifle Components.

Former governor Sarah Palin had a chance today to regain her footing. Instead she fell on her face and on the way down decided to declare herself a political martyr, too.

That conservatives like Andrew Breitbart felt it necessary to go where no one should go in her defense has been part of the Right’s problem all along. The hate never ends.

UPDATE II: Andrew Breitbart didn’t like my post, so he attacked my hairdresser on Twitter.

UPDATE: Sect. Clinton weighed in on the subject of Loughner today.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday Clinton, who had recently referred to the shooter as an “extremist,” doubled down on her comments saying that the shooter was an extremist who acted on his “bizarre” political views.

“Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman,” Clinton said. “And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action, that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism. So yes, I think that when you’re a criminal who is in some way pursuing criminal activity connected to — however bizarre and poorly thought through — your political views, that’s a form of extremism.”

Clinton added that she knows Giffords personally.

“I happen to know the congresswoman,” Clinton added. “I think very highly of her. She’s an extraordinary person as well as a great public servant. And the loss of all of the people — the federal judge, the nine-year-old girl, and others — is just heartbreaking to me.”

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Signs of Life in the Democratic Party



..at least in the House. Symbolic it may end up being, as it’s non-binding, but it’s a dramatic message sent.

In an update, Pelosi’s spokesperson is disputing reports that she will bring the bill to the floor, saying “she will honor the resolution,” and has issued a stated saying “this means we will not bring this [agreement] to the floor as is. It has to be changed.” More from POLITICO.

From Sam Stein:

“It was an indication of disapproval and a rejection of the deal as currently written,” said one House Democratic aide.

The vote, which was conducted with something less than a full caucus present, was as much a repudiation of the substance of the deal as the White House’s handling of it. According to sources, several members spoke out about the provision that deals with the estate tax, calling it too generous to the wealthy in its current incarnation. But there was also evident frustration with the administration for essentially cutting House Democrats out of the negotiations.

“The White House f—ed up in how they rolled this out and this is a vote sharing that frustration,” said one aide. “But it is not a deal killer.”

DeFazio added, “They said take it or leave it. We left it.”

“The House was not consulted during the negotiations that produced this package, and our support cannot be taken for granted now or in the future,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

If Pres. Obama gets his act together he can still get a deal, no doubt, because no Democrat wants to stiff the unemployed and the middle class. But this isn’t 2008 and he’s not the Prince of Washington anymore.

“This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It’s as simple as that,” said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen. – CNN

Read full story · Comments { 23 }