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 | national security

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

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

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By on 02 February 2012

This article was first published for U.S. News & World Report, under the title “Time for a Tea Party of the Left”.

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

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base, which has absolutely no resemblance to the Tea Party, who began challenging the Republican establishment back during George W. Bush’s term. The efforts finally ended up making history in 2010, with state legislatures across the country went Republican. It started an assault on the middle class, unions, as well as a war on women’s freedoms that ended up turning Wisconsin and Ohio upside down, but boy did it change the debate.

Now Newt Gingrich, once a speaker of the House, is running on an anti-establishment, anti-Washington platform spouting Tea Party populism as the new change message. In South Carolina, Newt sang the Tea Party’s tune and the right wing base rewarded him with a win, leaving the establishment mouths agape.

Where’s the Democratic version of the Tea Party? You’d think after Obama’s anti-progressive economics, foreign policy, and adoption of Bush antiterrorism policies (though to a more methodically lethal, anti-progressive effect), the Democratic base would have taken the Tea Party template and run with it by now.

Obama got away with the healthcare plan, which was bargained behind closed doors with private insurance and drug companies, manifesting a product that hasn’t kept costs down. He negotiated with himself, as he did on the stimulus, instead of using the majority he had in Congress to press the case for a public option that would have tackled healthcare costs, our biggest foe. It was never considered.

When Obama recently decided not to relax restrictions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave him a pass, while the Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, a member of the so called “Pro-Choice Caucus,” stated she was “disappointed.” There are never any repercussions for such decisions on the left, while repercussions have defined the Tea Party and its power on the right.

Understand that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion. It simply makes a female’s womb inhospitable for implantation and has been found absolutely safe by the F.D.A. However, as an ode to independents in an election season, Obama made a decision that any Republican would have made.

But not to worry, a carrot wasn’t far behind. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employer healthcare plan, with religious-affiliated hospitals and institutions getting a one-year delay to comply. It could have been done earlier, but an election year is prime time.

During the debate around Bowles-Simpson, entitlement “reform” was broached first by Obama, with cost-of-living increases on Social Security being considered by the White House. That this would hit women hardest and put them in poverty was evidently missed by the administration. It was scuttled when all hell broke loose.

There wasn’t a woman in the room during the debt ceiling debate, a time when entitlement “reforms” were being considered. Pelosi was only added after women’s groups held a conference call and writers started complaining.

Obama also cut home heating assistance for the poor at a time when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

During Obama’s first term, he’s sucked on the straw of cutting the deficit, while ignoring Democratic economics. The bully pulpit for progressive economics wasn’t used until re-election season, when he took to the stage at Osawatamie, Kan., channeling the Occupy Wall Street message while launching his 2012 campaign.

There’s the latest action on the Keystone XL Pipeline, at least a short-term win, but it’s not like he came out with gusto against it. Obama said no for now then blamed the Republicans for not giving him enough time to consider the environmental impact. Activists from the grass roots to Robert Redford applauded. We don’t even know if it’s a definite decision.

The Democratic base has a passive-aggressive relationship with Obama that resembles a dysfunctional love affair. He has all the power and the base has absolutely none, unless you count the gay and lesbian contingent which was as good a model as the Tea Party on how to get it done. It’s not that progressives couldn’t have power; it’s that they refuse to wield any.

So they cannot pressure Obama at election time because he knows his Democratic base will be there. After all, they’re not the Tea Party. It doesn’t matter if they’re unhappy, all that matters is he’s got their vote and he knows it.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Press Harassment Continues

By on 01 February 2012

“I’m within my First Amendment rights, and I’m being taken out,” Fox shouted as he was led away. – Josh Fox arrested at hearing, Politico

Josh Fox is an Oscar-nominated filmmaker. His documentary “Gasland” helped expose the dangers of unregulated natural gas fracking.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Nancy Reagan Rejects Newt’s ‘Legitimate Heir’ Claim

By on 31 January 2012

…and so continues Newt Gingrich’s very bad day.

He can take heart on one thing. DNI James R. Clapper Jr. has added fuel to Gingrich’s Iranian rhetorical fire, which will make the Republicans day. From the Washington Post today:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

Maybe that will take the sting out of Mrs. Reagan’s slap.

Few reporters have better sources inside Reagan World than NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who goes way back. With Mrs. Reagan still alive and undoubtedly very protective of the Reagan legacy as she sees it, there was little doubt that Newt’s claims wouldn’t go unchallenged.

From NBC’s First Read:

Calling himself “the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement,” Newt Gingrich recently cited a 1995 speech by Nancy Reagan in which the former First Lady said that her husband “passed on the torch” to him.

… But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports, Gingrich appears to be taking that comment out of context.

Sources close to Nancy Reagan said the speech itself was written by the host at the Goldwater Organization – where Mrs. Reagan delivered the remarks – and that she was referring generally to Congress and not specifically to the former Speaker, Mitchell reported on her MSNBC program.

Mrs. Reagan isn’t going to let anyone use Ronnie’s legacy for their own aggrandizement, certainly not a political grifter like Newt, with his hangers-on like Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Secy. Clinton’s Speech on Women, Peace and Security

By on 20 December 2011

Of course, we understand that there are differences that are of historic and cultural importance in many places around the world. And many of those we respect, and we try to be very sensitive to the legitimate concerns that people have about protecting what they value in their own societies. But there are certain actions that are beyond any cultural norm. Beating women is not cultural, it’s criminal, and it needs to be addressed and treated as such. (Applause.) – Secy. Clinton

It was a tremendous speech and a very important one. I tweeted many of her best sound bites, but there were so many. Secy. Clinton also announced an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, for which Pres. Obama deserves credit.

We all know that this focus on women as part of U.S. foreign policy is being guided by Secy. Clinton, who began this push as first lady that is the foundation of my book (now in print). It is part biography of Clinton, part autobiography as well because of the trajectory of my life and its link with the modern feminist movement and Hillary’s rise, which follows 20 years of politics.

It is another example of the Hillary Effect, with Clinton’s position at State solidifying the importance of women in United States foreign policy under Pres. Obama, which has never been given the focus it has before.

Farah Pandith, special Representative to Muslim Communities for the State Department, attributed this goal to the “Hillary effect,” a phrase that has come to describe Clinton’s contagious enthusiasm. Pandith applauded Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign, citing “15 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” – Clinton inspires Barnard students at State Department (h/t Daniel Aubry)

The text is here.

That is why this morning, President Obama signed an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security – a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the United States Government to advance women’s participation in making and keeping peace. This plan builds on the President’s national security strategy, and it was jointly developed by the Departments of State and Defense, USAID, and others with guidance from the White House. I also want to take a moment to recognize all our partners in civil society and the private sector who contributed, many of whom are here today. Without your on-the-ground experience, your passionate commitment, and your tireless effort, this plan would not exist, and we look forward to working just as closely together with you on implementing it.

…It’s true that the question of just how women contribute to peace and security, aside from the high-profile woman who sits at the table, or the nation’s leader that makes the peace, what it is that women themselves across the board can do? Well, this does deserve far more quantitative research and rigorous study. That’s why Georgetown’s plan to establish an Institute for Women, Peace, Security, and Development, to support scholarship and research, as well as outreach, will help us elevate public understanding of this important matter. It will be a home for primary source material such as oral histories, and quality analysis that will help activists and leaders as well. I can’t wait to see it up and going. A new push on research and data collection will be particularly useful for us as we implement our own National Action Plan.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Would Obama Veto Payroll Cut Bill If it Includes Keystone Pipeline?

By on 09 December 2011

Republicans believe that after weeks of taking a pounding from Obama over the payroll tax issue, they finally found a rallying point over the Keystone pipeline. “Everybody sees the president’s delay on the Keystone pipeline [for] what it is: He doesn’t want to choose between his political base, labor and environmentalists,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who heads up the Republican Conference’s 2012 efforts. But even though Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas support the pipeline project, top Senate Democrats are confident they’ll remove “extraneous” GOP provisions. – Politico

Right-leaning The Hill news outlet has a different take.

For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), there’s nothing like a presidential veto threat to make his job easier.

Pres. Obama delaying his decision on the Keystone Pipeline is like everything he does, it’s about his reelection and motivated by politics.

But while Republicans won’t tax millionaires, they are also trying to cut federal unemployment insurance benefits substantially too, as almost 1 million people are about to see the end to the aid in January.

So this is a very interesting development with the Keystone gambit smart for Republicans if they’d give on the millionaire surtax, but they won’t. It would also provide Pres. Obama an out, something that’s always appreciated by any politician.

If he caves on Keystone, it’s like what he did last year on extending the Bush tax cuts, but lately Obama doesn’t seem to be in that same mood. In 2010, he’d just come off a brutal shellacking in the midterms. Looking at Republicans today, Newt at the top of the ticket, with Santa coming early giving Obama reelect The Donald’s Apprentice debate (if it still happens, because most aren’t showing up), Pres. Obama is in the power position.

Nothing counts unless the Senate can pass the bill. But if they do, something that doesn’t happen often these days, and it comes to Pres. Obama’s desk, will he actually veto it?

In the background is what Barack Obama would likely do in a second term, with no political threat left. I believe he’d okay the Keystone Pipeline, because he’d be safe to rack up what the White House would call accomplishments. This isn’t Yucca Mountain, which I lived through out west. There’s a lot of ignorance about the environmental dangers of Keystone, with Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell saying that people will be protected environmentally from the dangers of what the Keystone could bring.

So, imagine a Cordray recess appointment, coupled with an Obama veto on a bill that extends the payroll tax and unemployment insurance, because of Keystone is included.

It would be an interesting way to end the year, with Obama cornering Republicans on raising taxes just as 2012 rolls in.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Newt Slips on Immigration, Romney Stays Focused on Nomination

By on 23 November 2011

The headlines have already started and they’re unlikely to stop.

The Hill: GOP debate: Gingrich divides himself from pack on immigration.

Politico: GOP debate: Newt Gingrich beats back immigration.

Gingrich doesn’t have Mr. Romney’s discipline. Pivoting on immigration, he made what could be a fatal error in the debate last night. Showing the compassion of a general election candidate, which has no relationship to what can win the nomination among hard right conservatives, Mr. Gingrich made his pitch for compassionate immigration based on family values.

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we have various penalties for employers, but i urge you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan. The party that says it’s the party of the family is not going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families who have been here a quarter century. I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.” – Newt Gingrich

Romney’s team is already slamming him on it:

“Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake, by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today,” Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty.”

The Washington Examiner reporter also got into a real back and forth with both Romney, then Gingrich, aides that was absolutely brutal, not to mention inconclusive, on what could be done with immigrants inside our country that have no path to documentation. It is hilarious in that Republicans make no sense on immigration sort of way.

Mr. Gingrich was good last night, the best on the stage at times, the crowd loving him. But you may remember last spring on “Meet the Press” when screwed up and insulted Paul Ryan and dissed his budget proposal, which threw his campaign into free fall. All these months later, he gave the bookend to his spring Ryan gaffe, when he showed his compassionate conservative side on immigration. It doesn’t matter if he thought channeling Reagan on immigration was a good idea, because this crowd wouldn’t nominate the Gipper today.

Mitt Romney has it drilled into his political being that he has to win the nomination first, so discipline on appealing to the core beliefs of primary voters is his plan. Sticking to it has been the most impressive part of Mr. Romney’s campaign. Knowing that he’s got serious challenges with Tea Party and right wing conservatives, he’s not going to antagonize them through general electioneering, because he can’t afford to lose a single point. Mr. Romney just doesn’t do foreign policy well, but all he has to do is sound sober and serious, which is his political DNA to a fault. With his strongest competition to date handing him a cudgel, you can bet he’s going to keep wielding it.

This is what Gingrich’s said after the debate, when the dust started to fly about his immigration comment, coming first from team Bachmann, via TPM:

“Newt has a commitment to human dignity,” Tina Ramirez, Gingrich’s National Security adviser, told TPM. “He has that commitment across the board with people around the world, not just with people who are immigrants here in America. He’s supported religious freedom in Egypt for instance, and he’s been speaking out in — if you look at his nine days that change the world in Poland, he talked about the rule of communism was brought down by the understanding of religious freedom and dignity.”

Now we’ll just have to wait and see if Newt Gingrich takes a hit in the polls for his family values immigration stance.

If he doesn’t, then Mitt Romney’s team will be dropping into Iowa and carpet bombing the voters with attack ads, because Mr. Gingrich had game last night that could make him the alternative to iron man Mitt.

Sad truth is that this was really amateurish overall. Where was the serious discussion about the costs of war and peace (except from Ron Paul)? Nuclear weapons responsibilities and challenges? North Korea? Sudan? Piracy? The complications and challenges of the Arab Spring? – Steve Clemons

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Foreign Policy Subject of the Night: Sequestration & Pentagon Cuts

By on 22 November 2011



Well, if it’s Tuesday it’s another Republican debate. This one is on foreign policy.

With 1% Newt in the lead, the level of bellicosity could be epic, especially if Mitt gets going on Iran.

But it’s the automatic trigger cuts on defense spending after the supercommittee epic fail that could become the topic of the night.

Wonder if Republicans consider economics a foreign policy issue considering what’s happening in Europe?

Tonight’s debate is carried on CNN and hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. It’s a neocon reunion for these guys.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Stop the debates

By on 13 November 2011

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

The bullshit Olympics we’re witnessing needs to stop.

Please, for everyone’s sake.

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

Anyone else have whiplash?

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

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

My head is spinning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Scott Pelley’s Awful Debate

By on 13 November 2011

Scott Pelley was a terrible moderator. He treated the men who might be the next commander in chief like schoolchildren, cutting them off in mid-sentence, lecturing them to answer his questions. He even lectured Newt Gingrich on policy, telling him that killing “terrorist suspects” is “not the rule of law.” Big mistake. Newt smacked him down, explaining that we are at war and in war we are allowed to kill the enemy without a court order. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed. – The Big Loser of the Night: CBS

If Major Garrett hadn’t been sitting next to Scott Pelley and assisting him the entire debate would have been unwatchable.

Mr. Pelley was not only a huge distraction, but his time keeping duty took precedence over actually keeping time correctly. Very early, he interrupted Romney well before his time was up and had to apologize to him for it. It got worse from there, with one cringe-worthy moment from Pelley having him scold the crowd that he’d not accept any booing. The serial interruptions of the candidates, whom voters were trying to hear, bordered on the absurd.

Whoever scheduled this travesty at such a ridiculous time and day is obviously clueless to the habits of normal people. Or perhaps they knew Scott Pelley wasn’t capable of moderating a debate.

Pelley’s performance last night was an embarrassment for CBS News, but maybe CBS will get lucky and Michele Bachmann’s tantrum will take most of the oxygen out of the reviews.

In the email string, CBS News’ political analyst John Dickerson said that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions during the debate and she’s nearly off the charts,” a reference to the Minnesota congresswoman’s low standing in the polls. … After the debate Stewart said that CBS News was guilty of “a bias” against Bachmann. “I inadvertently received an email where CBS made it clear that Michele was going to receive fewer questions than the other candidates. Clearly this is a problem,” Stewart said. – GOP Candidates Blast CBS News’ for ‘Disgraceful’ Bias at South Carolina Debate

Ron Paul wasn’t happy either.

I remain struck that Jon Huntsman, who just hasn’t been a good national candidate, really would turn a lot of heads if he’d ever make it to the general electorate.

Mitt Romney continues to skate by each debate without a glove landing on him, so these debates aren’t serving conservatives at all who want him challenged.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Republican Debate on Foreign Policy

By on 12 November 2011

There are four main reasons that Republicans have been ignoring foreign policy. First, polls show that voters hardly care about it. “Republicans realize this will be a referendum on Obama’s economy, and they’re speaking to that,” said Greg Mueller, the president of CRC Public Relations, which works with conservative candidates and advocacy groups. “It’s like in 1992, except that instead of saying, ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’ they’re saying, ‘It’s the Obama economy, stupid.’ ” Second, national security hasn’t been a weak point for Obama… – The National Journal

CBS News and the National Journal team up for tonight’s debate. Live streaming is here.

With the economy on everyone’s minds, Pres. Obama’s disapproval now at a new high, and after Bush-Cheney’s foreign policy adventurism, foreign policy isn’t the Republicans’ trump card any more. The other problem is that Pres. Obama has continued much of what George W. Bush started, while expanding in Afghanistan, with his assassination order on bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki proving Mr. Obama is anything but “weak on national security,” the favorite talking point of the right.

NJ has compiled terrific cheat sheets on the GOP candidates’ foreign policy dossiers.

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy ideas deserve the closest scrutiny, as he’s still likely to be the nominee.

But I’m wondering how Herman Cain will survive the night. He can’t revert to his 9-9-9 regurgitated talking points, with foreign policy his jaw dropping weakness.

This is a chance of Jon Huntsman to shine and keep his hopes of challenging Romney in New Hampshire alive, while Ron Paul, even though he rarely gets the credit he deserves on foreign policy, will certainly be challenging the Republican establishment and making them very uncomfortable.

As for Rick Perry, he’s launched a $975,000 ad buy on Fox News Channel to try to resurrect his candidacy, which I believe is actually about being able to go back to Texas short of disgraced.

Of course, on Saturday night it’s hard to imagine just how many potential primary voters will even be watching.

However, the political junkie class will have the popcorn ready, because Newt Gingrich has got to think he’s within striking distance of being the Romney alternative. Conservatives are desperate for one.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Friday Night Odds and Ends

By on 07 October 2011

“The protests that are trying to destroy the jobs of working people in this city aren’t productive,” Bloomberg said in his weekly radio appearance with John Gambling. Taking a swipe at “some of the labor unions participating,” Bloomberg added that “their salaries come from – are paid by – some of the people they’re trying to vilify.” – Mayor Bloomberg: Occupy Wall Street ‘Trying To Destroy the Jobs of Working People’

Why Occupy Wall Street? Watch the video above. I’d like to see Scott Brown do what Elizabeth Warren does in the video above, from DC Douglas.

Tech President reports from Wall Street and why some people just aren’t getting what’s going on.

In other news, Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech. Spencer Ackerman’s plea? Give me something to work with here, Mitt.

…and speaking of Mitt Romney, one of Perry’s backers calls Mormonism a “cult.”

Laura Rozen writes on McChrystal and what he has to say as we commemorate 10 years in Afghanistan: Ten years on, U.S. goals in Afghanistan only “fifty percent” met.

An “Ides of March” review from the New York Times. Another review mentions Jay Carson, someone I’ve met and spoken with on many occasions, but also adds color to the melding of reality and movie making:

As for the Morris handlers — Stephen Myers, played by Ryan Gosling; and Paul Zara, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman — it is impossible not to find traces of political strategist Jay Carson in their characters. A former campaign press secretary and adviser, Carson is CEO of the C40 Clinton Climate Initiative, which combines programs started by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former President Bill Clinton.

While on the campaign trail with Howard Dean and others, Carson was joined by Beau Willimon, a staff associate. Willimon later wrote a play on which The Ides of March is based, with substantial changes by Clooney; Willimon; and the other writer, Grant Heslov.

“Beau, George and Grant really get it,” Carson said recently. (more at the link)

And in case you missed it, essays on Bill Clinton’s presidency are now online in celebration of when he announced, 20 years ago last week. This video offers a flashback, too.

Jared Bernstein on the jobs report: “Shaky Stability.”

AP reports prostate cancer screenings for men are out.

Herman Cain catapults 20 points ahead of Mitt Romney in a new Zogby poll.

Happy Friday night!

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

What Got Your Attention Today?

By on 28 September 2011



Mr. Christie has to know that the minute he changes his mind the blush will go off his New Jersey… er… whatever. See the Daily Caller for proof.

The Solyndra imbroglio didn’t keep the Obama administration from offering more clean energy loan guarantees.

Energy Department approves $1 billion in solar energy loan guarantees

DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve.

The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs.

“If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a news release. “Solar generation facilities, like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, help supply energy to local utilities and create hundreds of good, American clean energy jobs.”

What we really need is a president with vision and a Congress who takes clean energy seriously. We have neither.

So, what got your attention today? This is interesting.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Jeb Bush Agrees with Rick Perry on Immigration

By on 28 September 2011



It’s not getting any traction, but it’s a moment that reveals the gulf between GOP primary voters and the Republican establishment. It’s also a battle of extremism vs. solutions.

GOP immigration debate shows rift between party establishment and conservative grassroots.

With Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry under attack for supporting tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants, former Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday offered some solidarity by calling a similar proposal in Florida “fair policy.”

In 2001, Perry signed the first state law in the country that allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates. Former Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata said the Texas law was “the model” for legislation that he repeatedly—but unsuccessfully—pushed in his state. Two of his key allies then are now among the GOP’s most sought-after stars: Bush, the subject of perpetual draft movements to run for president, and his fellow Floridian, Sen. Marco Rubio, a sure bet for the GOP’s vice presidential shortlist in 2012.

“I think that is a fair policy,” Bush said in an e-mail to National Journal on Tuesday, adding that the students who benefit from the tuition breaks find themselves in the United States through “no fault of their own.”

Mitt Romney is having none of this (see video above, which Romney is promoting on Twitter), because he’s already vulnerable on so many other issues he can’t afford it. He’s being practical for the primaries.

As for Rick Perry, his debate performances have been so atrocious I’m doubtful he can come back. The immigration issue is also so hot among the far right who vote in the primaries that they may not allow him to.

It will make things very interesting if (when) Marco Rubio is being considered for the Republican vice presidential spot.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Rick Perry on the Record

By on 15 September 2011

Gov. Rick Perry’s interview with TIME magazine.

On Social Security, he’s obviously not worried GOP primary voters think calling Social Security a “ponzi scheme” is a problem.

But you know there’s concern among the Karl Rove crowd. Team Obama is going to love this answer:

There may be someone who is an established Republican who circulates in the cocktail circuit that would find some of my rhetoric to be inflammatory or what have you, but I’m really talking to the American citizen out there. I think American citizens are just tired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing around important issues. They want a decisive leader. I’m comfortable that the rhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on. Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme has been used for years. I don’t think people should be surprised that terminology would be used.

No one gets confused about the point I was making, that we have a system that is now broken. We need to make sure that those on Social Security today — and those approaching it — know without a doubt it will be in place. It will not go away. We’ll have a transitional period for those in mid-career as they’re planning for their retirement. And our young people should be given some options. I don’t know what all of those options need to be yet, but they know instinctively that the program that is there today is not going to be there for them unless there are changes made.

I don’t get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken. If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it’s a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it’s broken –they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation. Don’t try to scare the senior citizens and those who are on Social Security that it’s somehow going to go away with the mean, old heartless Republican.

How would you change Social Security? Would you consider private accounts or raising the retirement age?

We are having a national discussion now about a lot of different options: raising the [retirement] age, doing it in a structured way for the younger worker, some options from the standpoint of private accounts — all of those ought to be on the table. The idea that we’re going to write a Social Security reform plan today is a bit of a stretch from my perspective. I have accomplished one of the things that I wanted to do by talking about it. Americans are paying attention.

On Afghanistan:

What should happen next in Afghanistan?

I think we need to try to move our men and women home as soon as we can. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. And we’ve got to continually reassess our objectives. We need to make strategic decisions based on consultation with our military leaders on the ground, rather than just some arbitrary political promises.

Our objective should be clear. We’ve got to support the Afghan national security forces as they transition into the role of being the stable and appropriate force to sustain that country. Our overall objective has to be to serve that process and to drive out those who would do harm to our country. I think we’ve done that in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have substantial ways to continue to put the pressure on the bad guys, if you will, and I don’t think keeping a large force of United States uniform military in Afghanistan for a long period of time is particularly in the interest of the U.S., or for that matter, in Afghani interest.

But that was his answer with TIME.

Josh Rogin has a piece on Perry and Afghanistan, and this is from First Read:

In his VFW speech, He also has seemed to be for muscular interventionism — “We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home.”

But then in the very next sentence, he seemed to be against it — “I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened.”

Rick Perry is obviously confused. He’s not shown himself to be a very adept debater and he’s totally unable to think on his feet about complex issues. His discernment factor is zero.

Remind you of anyone?

Rick Perry is a 20th century man at a time when our challenges are very complex. But he’s outpacing Mitt Romney right now, because he comes off authentic, something Mitt couldn’t manage in a million years.

So far, regardless of Pres. Obama’s problems, and he’s got a lot of them, none of the Republican candidates have impressed enough for anyone to believe any of them can beat Candidate Obama, who’s a whole different beast than his weaker alter ego, Pres. Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

FT: Obama’s Planned Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security **UPDATED**

By on 14 September 2011

The Financial Times lays out what has been talked about for months and months, with Pres. Obama set to deliver a speech on deficit reduction on Monday.

It begins with the way the U.S. government measures inflation, which would deliver “a less generous chained-consumer price index,” to quote FT.

This decision alone would devastate elderly women, as I’ve written before.

Research from IWPR has shown the current Social Security program is a mainstay for women, and these findings have been supported by research from other organizations. Adult women are 51 percent (27 million) of all beneficiaries, including retirees, the disabled, and the survivors of deceased workers (52.5 million). Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become permanently disabled. Moreover, due to the recession many women have lost home equity and savings to failing markets. Older women—and older low income populations in general—have become more economically vulnerable and dependent on Social Security benefits. – IWPR

To give you an idea of the story framing at FT, they call Medicare and Medicaid “large government healthcare schemes for the elderly and the poor.”

As for Social Security, we just learned that according to the U.S. Census the only group not being dragged into poverty in the Obama era is senior citizens. There’s only one reason why, but our Democratic President thinks it’s time to “reform” their reality.

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade’

… Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the period from 2001 to 2007 was the first recovery on record where the level of poverty was deeper, and median income of working-age people was lower, at the end than at the beginning.

“Even before the recession hit, a lot of people were falling behind,” he said. “This may be adding to people’s sense of urgency about the economy.”

The suburban poverty rate, at 11.8 percent, appears to be the highest since 1967, Mr. Sherman added. Last year more Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty has also swallowed more children, with about 16.4 million in its ranks last year, the highest numbers since 1962, according to William Frey, senior demographer at Brookings. That means 22 percent of children are in poverty, the highest percentage since 1993.

Too bad the poor and children don’t squawk as loud as seniors, aren’t represented by AARP, but also don’t vote in as large numbers.

It’s funny how Republicans and now even Democrats are so courageous about putting the people’s safety net on the block, but these same politicians turn yellow when it comes to making real choices about military overspending, extravagance and waste, as if our military footprint around the globe isn’t a huge part of our economic problem.

But I’m reasonable.

So, I can be convinced to make serious entitlement reform, but something else has to happen first.

Get out of Iraq and begin a much more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, because Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered and broken apart; at the same time redeploy our troops from Germany and Okinawa, for starters, with an assessment begun by a committee filled with national security, military and Pentagon busting experts (like Winslow Wheeler) not currently attached to the Pentagon or having lobbyist ties, to ascertain the other countries from which we can remove U.S. forces, based on U.S. strategic interests.

Do all of these things then come to me and ask about entitlement cuts reform.

UPDATE – 9.15.11: Under pressure, today the White House pushed back on the FT story, with reports in the Washington Post and the WSJ reporting Pres. Obama will not tinker with Social Security. The problem for Pres. Obama is that he’s already floated these ideas, so whether he does it on Monday or not it’s in the political water, bolstering the Right’s passion for pulverizing the U.S. social safety net.

The last time President Obama negotiated with Republicans about overhauling the nation’s social safety set, he put several significant and politically explosive proposals on the table.

This time, it may be different.

As Obama prepares to present Congress on Monday with a detailed plan for taming the nation’s debt, a pivotal question is whether he will again propose raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and propose cuts in Social Security benefits.

Over the objections of members of his party, the president had agreed to those changes as part of an unsuccessful effort to strike a debt deal this summer with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). But Obama’s aides say the plan being released Monday would not represent that sort of compromise.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

The Meaning of ‘Special Relationship’: Israel vs. Saudi Arabia

By on 12 September 2011

Incoming from Arabia.

From Turki al-Faisal:

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Which “special relationship” is more special?

Strategic interests abound, domestic politics prominently weighing down the inevitable awkwardness and the predictable conclusion.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Romney Gets Into it in Iowa

By on 11 August 2011

“If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else,” he said. “If you want someone who will raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama.” – Romney gets in heated exchange with hecklers at Iowa State Fair

The exchange came on the same day as what’s being billed as a big Republican debate before the ridiculously overrated Ames straw poll. Now that Romney’s being defined as a “fragile” or “tentative” frontrunner, he’s going to have to take his campaign out of coast.

As he did so he ran headlong into a tree of the activist variety. They’re the Citizens for Community Improvement and they made Romney’s day a lot more complicated than he wanted it to be.

Democrats are rightly jumping all over Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, which illustrates why the establishment hasn’t backed him yet. It’s not just tone deaf but an offensive thing to say with 10+ double-digit real unemployment. Anyone thinking sticking up for corporations in the current atmosphere is a winner is hopeless.

For any Democrat or progressive, what Romney said is red meat. It’s also fodder for the Obama campaign if Romney’s the nominee, but he isn’t yet.

However, if you’re a Republican who hasn’t quite warmed to Romney, I’m not so sure this clip is bad for slick Mitt.

It’s the first relaxed, un-weird and unscripted moment that comes with a pretty good punch line for Republican primary voters. He doesn’t come off as afraid to mix it up and commits himself strongly, even if he’s wrong about, well, just about every policy issue, unless you include his move to raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts to lure S&P to raise his state’s credit rating.

However, all of this is a great set up for Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance.

Still, Romney actually showed some life and real humanness today amidst it all, moments that have been very few for him.

I’m starting to think that what was missing from Romney’s campaign was a little healthy competition.

Rick Perry getting in the race may be the best thing that ever happened to Mitt Romney, because he clearly can’t be as nonchalant with Perry poised to enter. But all the hoopla with Perry is reminiscent of what Fred Thompson engendered before he jumped in and landed on his face. Perry’s not Thompson, but he’s also not Chris Christie, who fits the times much better.

Though why anyone would think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney is beyond me, though the “cowboy” thing in the era of Obama could seduce the neocons.

For Republicans outside the Perryverse, his approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive… all of the traits Republicans see as lacking in the Obama’s foreign policy.

“He’s a cowboy,” said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain’s presidential campaign. “You have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later — which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy.”

Yee-haw.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Matt Damon on Teachers

By on 03 August 2011

Pres. Obama has already telegraphed that he’s ready to work with Republicans, as the Administration prepares to privatize education, while changing the public school system under the mantel of “reform.”

Matt Damon played offense recently and he effusively heaped praise on the teachers who don’t get paid enough and take way too much grief for what they are paid.

But this is when Austerity’s grip, the need for more and better schools, and partnerships with businesses wanting to help offer more options tend to make some people simply ask Why not?

It’s not about qualified teachers with experience getting a living wage and some control over the task they’ve been asked to do.

Over to you.. …

Read full story · Comments { 9 }