Page 5 | Obama | TaylorMarsh.com

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

Tag Archives | Obama

Progressive Notes: Al Gore Calls on Us, New Progressive Alliance, Van Os Urges His Party to Wake Up, and Other Doings

By Art Pronin on 06 August 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Lonely Obama signs Budget Control Act

So much to discuss this epic week, a turning point for many activists. Kudos to Russ Feingold, Keith Olbermann, Rep. Cleaver and many other saying NO to this devil sandwich. Al Gore’s words on Olbermann are stirring. He says our system is totally corrupt, the media and too many pols. He urges people to get in the streets and resist austerity. He calls for a American Tahrir Square. Perhaps Gore’s time to lead is NOW:

We have the Israeli Spring breaking out. As Tel A’viv protestors let it be known:

A number of signs that were hung on Kaplan Street read “Resign, Egypt is here”.

"When government is against the people, the people are against the government."

Today 1/4 the population of Israel are in the streets, over 300,000, protesting for cheaper housing, the end to government corruption and more. It is the “Israeli Spring” as they, like us, are fed up with their government too corrupt to solve their problems. A liveblog is here. Read more on Ha-Aretz here .

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca) is one of the few brave members of congress. She and Congressman Conyers founded the Out of Poverty Caucus. Lee voted against the authorization for war right after September 11th fearing we were rushing into something we could not get out of. Here she is speaking July 30th on the debt vote and how “the American dream has become a nightmare for too many”:

Obama’s debt deal has sunk with the public of course. And Wall St. isn’t in love either this week. In fact Kevin Drum shows a mere 10 percent back this deal with no new revenue and cuts to hundreds of programs. 10! Congress’ approval sits at 14pct. Another wave is sweeping towards DC again.

The Whitehouse met with liberal groups and got an earful about the debt deal fiasco and don’t worry, the Whitehouse blames the base for not fighting hard enough. Yeah right buddies!

Recall when Obama asked America to call their congress members to urge them to cut a deal and end the debt crisis? And the circuits at the Capitol shorted? Guess who it appears flooded congress? yep- the Tea Party according to Pew:

…some 66% of Republicans and Tea Partiers contacted an elected official during the standoff while only 5% of the rest did the same. This despite a direct appeal from President Obama to do exactly that.
As was the case in the midterm election, age was a crucial factor. Only 19% of 18-29 year-olds followed the story closely and 1% contacted an official versus 54% of those over 50 who followed the debate and 16% who contacted an official.

Gee could it be because Dems did not phone in because the deal included “everything on the table including SS and Medicare”?

Progressives have many crucial state level battles ahead and it is important we be engaged in them in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, California and more. In fact in Colorado enough signatures were gathered to undo a freeze in tax rates and would raise the taxes to pay for schools. Lots to do, much more than in DC these days.

Tavis Smiley and Cornell West have launched a 15 city bus tour to highlight poverty in America and the poor are being criminalized. The bus tour hits key African-American, Latino and Native American communities suffering with intolerable double digit pct unemployment rates on top of massive poverty. Their first stop is Obama’s hometown Chicago and the goal is to not just highlight the poor but to show that criticism of this administration’s policies is not just ok but beneficial:

They’ll visit soup kitchens, public housing projects, and farms. They’ll stay with low-income families and along the way they’ll try to assess whether Obama’s policies are working.
“This is a way to galvanize as opposed to complain,” West said. “Both parties have rendered the poor invisible. The only thing we have left is to dramatize their plight.”

Lots of talk of how this debt deal is like FDR’s 1937. But there is a major difference, FDR aligned himself with progressives while Obama is conservative. Joe Nocera in a must read in the NYT points this out:

..One thing Roosevelt did right during the Depression was legislate into being a social safety net to soften the blows that a free-market economy can mete out in tough times. During this recession, it’s as if the government is going out of its way to make sure the blows are even more severe than they have to be. The debt-ceiling debate reflects a harsher, less empathetic America. It’s sad to see.

The deal is vindictive towards the less fortunate. It’s authors went to town against ordinary Americans by slashing at the safety net.

Famed economist Galbraith has a take on what we are seeing- make a Depression to help the rich:

Galbraith said he thinks some of the super-rich out there, sitting on all that cash, are actually hoping for the economy to crash and burn.
“The strategy of pursuing a deflationary strategy is a strategy that greatly benefits people with cash,” said Galbraith. “If you’re interested in deflating asset values, and you have cash with which to buy assets when things hit rock bottom, then you have a powerful interest in a deep depression.”
“That’s certainly consistent with the banks holding 1.4 trillion [dollars] of reserves, which is absolutely unprecedented,” said Pollin, who backs a tax on excess reserves. “That’s 10 percent of GDP.”

Speaking of FDR and throw backs to 1937 David Woolner, FDR historian from the Roosevelt Institute wrote a great piece on how Obama failed miserably on learning any lessons from Roosevelt. In fact after FDR realized his huge cuts contracted the economy he got passed a new stimulus which stabilized it at least. FDR was saved economically by WWII and thus his presidency.

The Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution this week calling for Obama to face a primary challenge for his rightward tilt and especially for the debt deal. Caucus members caught hell for saying out loud what many are thinking but the issue is injected into the political conversation in California. Read the resolution here .

After this catastrophic regressive debt deal we ask “where do we go f rom here as progressives?” I do not have a clear answer yet. Several orgs have piqued interest for me. One is the New Progressive Alliance. This org has a aggressive approach to try all things: primary Obama, if not then recruit delegates in places like Iowa to be non-pledged for leverage at the convention, if candidates do not uphold progressive values then vote third party. This new group is to organize progressives of all parties into one unit to push our pols and elect anti-austerity and anti-corporate folks.

This org has a platform. It is the 1912 Progressive Party platform which is great.

One more potent note on this debacle. In Texas, David Van Os, a well known name around here for Democrats, wrote a stunning indictment of how Obama is wrecking the party’s future. Van Os has been general counsel for AFL-CIO, former chair of the Travis Co. (Austin) Democratic Party, a precinct chair, counsel for ACLU, and many others. He was also nominated by Democratic primary voter to run for Attorney General here but lost.

His words have ignited a real discussion about Obama because he has been such a part of the party for so long:

…This president bears no resemblance to progressivism, populism, leadership, backbone, or to express Democratic Party values. I do not follow him, do not trust him, will not trust him, and will not follow him. To those who will inevitably say, “But oh my gosh, he is the only alternative to the right-wing conservative Republicans,” I say: “Give me an opponent who tells me straight up that he opposes me and doesn’t pretend otherwise. A Trojan horse pretending to my friend is the greatest danger of all because he co-opts my defenses and opens the city gates against me from the inside.” Grass roots Americans who supported this Trojan horse in the election of 2008 need to wake up to the truth about the political fraud that sucked them in.

Amen to that.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Progressive Notes: Latest Debt Ceiling Deal Mayhem- Off the Reservation and..

By Art Pronin on 24 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Here is the latest debt ceiling deal mayhem. It is hard to tell what is going on and it appears chaotic at best on the Hill with Boehner moving to push his own “deal” though the House and Reid ready to push perhaps some “counter deal” through the Senate.

Reid has gotten attention this afternoon with a proposal he is working on. DDay has details better than I can give:

CNN has reported that Harry Reid is working on his own debt limit proposal that would cut deficits by $2.5 trillion total, include no revenue increases, and raise the debt limit by that same $2.5 trillion amount. Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the President and Vice President are scheduled to meet in the White House tonight starting at 6pm ET. Aides stressed that this would satisfy two key demands of the House GOP. It would have the dollar-for-dollar relationship between spending cuts and an increase in the debt limit; and it would not include revenue.
It sounds to me like the Democrats feel they need a counter-offer to what John Boehner will propose. We know that Boehner wants to call the President’s bluff and offer a mechanism with a short-term debt limit increase combined with spending cuts, and a Catfood Commission II that would be tied to the next tranche of debt limit increase.

With debate now so far right many feel Reid may offer the best ahem deal because apparently it would mirror Pelosi’s, which would keep the Big 3 off the table for now:

I would guess that the outline of the cuts would be similar to what Nancy Pelosi suggested in a meeting with bloggers on Friday. It hinges on an accounting gimmick that would “reduce” deficits based on drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because CBO essentially calculates the cost of war based on the previous year’s cost, by capping war spending at a lower number you “save” a good deal. As Pelosi described it, that could add up to $1 trillion to the total savings.
So you can get to $2.5 trillion pretty easily, then. Take the $1 trillion from the wars, add $1.2 trillion in agreed-to cuts from the discretionary budget, and add $200-$300 billion from foregone interest payments and you’re there.

So use some gimmicks, use the ending of the wars as saving, plus cuts agreed to months ago and presto! You still might get a Depression-lite but might keep SS from being cut.

The key here is this proposed Super Congress thing. That committee would have super votes which can send cuts in benefits straight though ie no filibusters. Wish they could have found a way to pass stimulus this way for jobs but DC isn’t into that.

So if Reid puts this Catfood II cmte into a deal that would mean congress voting on cuts to every cherished program ie Medicare in a general election year. This is so politically and morally asinine I cannot fathom what they are thinking.

DDay adds this which I think is true so hope now. If the Catfood II is put off the table then:

This would allow the real debate about taxes and the safety net to be decided by VOTERS, not commissions or other extra-Constitutional processes. The 2012 elections could make the determination. The public could have a voice. And the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which would raise $4 trillion over a decade, would be the forcing mechanism.

Krugman has called Obama’s debt plan all sorts of wicked names, including “politically stupid.” Of note is his highlighting of writer Elizabeth Drew who gives insight into what POTUS is thinking here. This is not pretty, says Drew:

..when Obama suddenly injected Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid into the deficit and debt negotiations, many, perhaps most, Democrats were dismayed. They believed that the President was offering up the poor and the needy as a negotiating gambit. (His position was that if the Republicans would give on taxes, he’d give on entitlements.) A bewildered Pelosi said after that meeting, “He calls this a Grand Bargain?” And she came down firmly against any changes in those programs that would hurt beneficiaries.
Moreover, the Democrats had their own political reasons for opposing reductions in Medicare benefits. They had had great success in campaigning against Paul Ryan’s bizarre proposal, adopted by the House (despite even Boehner’s expressed misgivings), that would turn Medicare into a voucher system.

So Drew gets to the nitty gritty- why would Obama throw out his only strong path to victory: defending the safety net against the GOP and Ryan?:

It all goes back to the “shellacking” Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President’s political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. This was an arguable interpretation. Nevertheless, the political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.
That explains a lot about the course the President has been taking this year. The political team’s reading of these voters was that to them, a dollar spent by government to create a job is a dollar wasted. The only thing that carries weight with such swing voters, they decided—in another arguable proposition—is cutting spending. Moreover, like Democrats—and very unlike Republicans—these voters do not consider “compromise” a dirty word.

So as usual Obama and friends misread what voters want. She gives this nugget I find appalling and very disturbing about Obama confronting liberal Congressman Waxman:

…in late June, the tough-minded, experienced, and blunt Democratic Representative Henry Waxman of California told Obama in a White House meeting that he’d asked several Republicans about their meeting with him the day before, and, “To a person, they said the President’s going to cave.”
Then the congressman said to the President of the United States, “And if you’re going to cave, tell us right now.” The President was reported to have been displeased, and responded, “I’m the President of the United States; my words carry weight.”

Read the whole thing here. Many more details emerge including why all of Obama’s economic advisors have fled the ship. And soon so might the liberals of the Democratic Party, as Nichols of The Nation notes of trouble with the base in the Democratic primary.

Oh and here is what Boehner is up to and it is just as insane.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Progressive Notes: Thought Congress was Nuts? Meet the Super Congress.

By Art Pronin on 24 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

I saw this and find it to be outright shocking (ish). The fools in congress want a Super Congress. You read right. What a violation of the Constitution and the intent of the founders and democracy itself.

Congress would create a panel of 12, 6 Dems and 6 Repubs with super power votes. This panel can fast track votes through the congress especially benefit cuts for the poor, elderly, and veterans:

Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.

The best part is they will only require have a simple majority vote to move legislation, not like the Simpson Bowles gig which required a 2/3 vote to pass recommendations.

This is highly disturbing. 12 members of congress will have far greater power with their votes than the rest. Fair and equal representation? No. The debt ceiling crisis is turning into a epic damaging event for America. And a depressing one.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Progressive Notes: Stop Saying “Entitlements,” POTUS’ Other Cuts, Gang of 80 and Other Happenings

By Art Pronin on 23 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

FDR in 1936 on the debt:

… “And now a word as to this foolish fear about the crushing load the debt will impose upon your children and mine. This debt is not going to be paid by oppressive taxation on future generations. It is not going to be paid by taking away the hard-won savings of the present generation.
It is going to be paid out of an increased national income and increased individual incomes produced by increasing national prosperity.”

That is how a Democrat talks friends.

This is NOT how a Democrat talks my friends:

Barack Obama, 7/22/2011, 6:06pm ET:
“We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”

House progressive congress members hold a press conference warning of the impact on minorities from potential ghastly budget cuts:

FDR warned about the GOP’s tactics and their goals back in the 1930s. And yet too many Dems ignore his advice:

The term “entitlement” is one of late I have begun using and should not. And you should not. Obama calls SS, Medicare and Medicaid “entitlements,” but this a term no Democrat should use. Why?:

“Entitlement” is a misleading word because it masks the ugly reality of reducing medical aid for the poor, the disabled and anyone over 65 as well as cutting Social Security. Calling such programs entitlements is much more comfortable than describing them as what they are–Medicare, Social Security and money for good schools, unemployment insurance, medical research and public works construction that would put many thousands to work.
It’s also a Republican word. It implies that those receiving government aid have a sense of entitlement, that they’re getting something for nothing.

40 years ago progressives got student financial aid passed. Pell grants and Stafford loans (where the government pays your interest while in school) are now on the chopping block if the Gangsters of Six get their way:

..One idea popular [11] with the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, and echoed recently by Representative Eric Cantor, would be to end the Stafford student loan program, which subsidizes the interest on loans while students are enrolled in college. An outright elimination of the program would save the government $40 billion over ten years, but would force students to pay interest on their college loans while still in school and likely not drawing much of an income, if any.
Pell Grants, which are federal scholarships for low-income students, are also likely [12] to be on the chopping block. The program is already running an $11 billion deficit, and will no doubt be a juicy target for Senators looking to get $70 billion in cuts.

Senator Ted Kennedy’s last legislative piece before he died is also on the chopping block if this deal passes. CLASS would provide for care if you became disabled. If you pay a nominal fee per year to the program after 5 years would be covered by this form of insurance. But alas:

…The elimination of the CLASS Act is another example of sacrificing a valuable program that simply does not contribute to the deficit but rather conflicts with conservative ideology. The Congressional Budget Office estimates [9] the program actually saves the government $70 billion through 2019, because people have to pay premiums for five years in order to qualify for benefits. It also keeps people out of nursing homes, which are a major driver of increasing medical costs.

Yes cut a program that would save the government a ton of money because it IS government helping people.

But there are progressive groups mobilizing against this debt deal. Jane Hamsher and her FDL crew have been raising hell- the kind of hell every progressive org should be raising. It is not enough t o say “I wont give your campaign any money or support.” FDL’s pledge is that “I WONT VOTE FOR you candidate if he or she backs cuts.” Big difference. So thousands from FDL went to their respective congress member’s office and told them just that! Read some of their stories here .

Here is Hamsher taking on her congress member:

The Progressive Caucus is whipping votes against any deal that cuts our cherished programs. They so far have 80 House Dems, and even a few not so liberal ones as well:

July 22, 2011
Washington, D.C. – Eighty Member of Congress have now signed onto a letter spearheaded by Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) leaders to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi insisting that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid be off the table in any budget deal. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American have also signed the letter and are encouraging their respective Caucus members to join them.
Originally sent by CPC co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison on July 8, the letter is still open for signatures and has become the primary vehicle for House Democrats to express their support for the programs during budget negotiations. The letter says that middle-class families “have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.”
“We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a ‘final agreement’ that we do not agree to — and that the American people do not agree to. We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side,” the letter says.
Signatories include CPC Co-Chairs Grijalva and Ellison, along with Reps. Baca, Karen Bass, Bordallo, Brown, Carson, Christiansen, Chu, Yvette Clarke, Hansen Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Critz, Cummings, Danny Davis, DeFazio, DeLauro, Deutch, Doggett, Edwards, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Frank, Fudge, Garamendi, Al Green, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hinchey, Hirono, Holmes Norton, Holt, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Kaptur, Kildee, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Lofgren, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Moore, Nadler, Napolitano, Olver, Pallone, Payne, Pingree, Rangel, Reyes, Richardson, Richmond, Rothman, Roybal-Allard, Tim Ryan, Sablan, Schakowsky, Serrano, Stark, Sutton, Bennie Thompson, Tierney, Tonko, Towns, Waters, Waxman, Frederica Wilson, Woolsey, and Wu.

Did you see your House member listed? If so call his or her office and back them up. If not call and say they won’t get your vote unless they stand up.

On election reform we have news from California. The legislature has passed a law which make the electoral college irrelevant:

If Brown chooses to sign the bill it would be a huge step towards reforming our ridiculously outdated electoral college system.
The way the National Popular Vote movement works is that once states with 271 electoral colleges votes all sign on, they agree to than give all their electoral college votes collectively to whatever Presidential candidate received the most votes national wide. The result would be that American would finally become like almost every other Presidential democracy, where the candidate that the most citizens voted for wins.
Currently seven states plus the District of Columbia, with a total of 77 electoral college seats have passed the law. If Brown signs this bill in California it would bring the total to 132, nearly half way to the number needed.

Ending the power of the electoral college would allow for progressives to have mush more say in presidential elections. California’s votes would be as important as say swing state Florida!

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Progressive Notes: FDR’s Grandson Wonders “Where are Leaders?”

By Art Pronin on 23 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

As Obama puts the New Deal on the table for carving, while Senator Sanders calls for a primary challenger to the president over his violations of the principles of the Democratic Party, FDR’s grandson emerges again to tae Obama to task on capitalism run amok.

FDR’s grandson Curtis Roosevelt continues his critique of Obama in the Huffington Post. It is damning. He is most peeved that Obama has been so cozy with big banks and has allowed capitalism to become dysfunctional by not imposing good regulations:

The problem with capitalism is that it can quickly get out of control. An instrument of capitalism, such as a bank, for example, intended to provide a service, can move on to fleece those it supposedly serves. Since maximizing profits is considered a virtue, free enterprise can move with alacrity towards the kind of disaster that causes bankruptcy and job losses — even nationwide and throughout the world. That is the genesis of the Great Depression and the current (yes, still current) Great Recession.
There are only two solutions to limiting this exercise of greed: instituting restraints that are enforceable by law (with penalties that bite), or using fear to repress greed, just as we repress lust. When I was a lad, our fear of venereal disease was indeed considerable, just as it is with HIV today.
Repressing greed is difficult. In our present culture, greed is held aloft, admired as “success” or “winning.” Free enterprise is revered as if it were a religion. Criticism of capitalism is close to being unpatriotic (“Watch it, Buster!”).

But regulate it we must. He lays into Obama and his cozy Wall St. love affair and gives a slap at the end here:

The Justice Department .. lets the banks off practically scot-free. The Administration’s support for major banking reforms seems to be in name only, as it just pecks at the problems. We never hear the kind of plain statements condemning the business and financial communities for their misdeeds that Reich, Krugman, Rich, Sachs, and other columnists record in detail.
In contrast, FDR said, “Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion.” And my favorite: “Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.”
Even Herbert Hoover remarked, shortly before his exit, “You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists–they’re too damn greedy.”
Their comments are as relevant today as they were during the Great Depression. Must we hark back to Roosevelt and Hoover in our search for political leadership?

Bingo. We are looking back 80 years for leadership. Where are the leaders now? FDR can inspire new ones perhaps, but the Greatest Generation is dying out fast. We need leaders.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Progressive Notes: Sanders Lays into “Deal” , Vows to Fight on the Floor

By Art Pronin on 22 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Senator Sanders tears into this infamous deal from Hell and thanks the Gangsters of 6 for this disgrace. He details the programs we cherish which will be cut or eliminated. Dems bent over backwards to get Coburn to deal by offering cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Isn’t that lovely!

Sanders on the floor July 20th 2011:

Sanders wrote in Huffington Post a moving piece:

…What we are talking about is that Social Security cuts would go into effect virtually immediately. Ten years from now, the typical 75-year-old person will see their Social Security benefits cut by $560 a year. The average 85-year-old will see a cut of $1,000 a year. Now, for some people here in Washington, maybe the big lobbyists who make hundreds of thousands a year, $560 a year or $1,000 a year may not seem like a lot of money, but if you are a senior trying to get by on $14,000, $15,000, $18,000 a year and you’re 85 years old, the end of your life, you’re totally vulnerable, you’re sick — a $1,000 per year cut in what you otherwise would have received is a major, major blow.
…
But it’s not just Social Security. We have 50 million Americans today who have no health insurance at all. Under the Gang of Six proposals, there will be cuts in Medicare over a 10-year period of almost $300 billion. There will be massive cuts in Medicaid and other health care programs. There will be caps on spending, which mean that there will be major cuts in education. If you are a working-class family, hoping that you’re going to be able to send your kid to college and thinking that you will be eligible for a Pell grant, think twice about that. Pell grants may not be there. If you’re a senior who relies on a nutrition program, that nutrition program may not be there. If you think it’s a good idea that we enforce clean air and clean water provisions so that our kids can be healthy, those provisions may not be there because there will be major cuts in environmental protection.

Sanders should mount a filibuster of this deal if it happens. He hints he might:

This senator is going to fight back. I was not elected to the United States Senate to make devastating cuts in Social Security, in Medicare, in Medicaid, in children’s programs while lowering tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Progressive Notes: Will Party Loyalty Kill the Party?

By Art Pronin on 21 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Glenn Greenwald has done it again with a piece in the Guardian on how Obama is dismantling the core principles of the Democratic Party.

He notes how many progressives, like Atrios, predicted if Obama touched SS there would be such a uprising in the party Obama would be overwhelmed. This has yet to occur.

Why? Party loyalty has become so part of our politics that what Obama is doing to the core of the party is succeeding:

Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation’s social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party’s platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.
And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.

Read the whole thing. Will party loyalty be so blind to Obama it will destroy the Democratic Party? If the Dems don’t stand for the New Deal then the party itself stands for what?

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Queer Talk: Obama endorses the Respect for Marriage Act

By Joyce Arnold on 19 July 2011

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

UPDATE Today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings regarding The Respect for Marriage Act, and DOMA, will be streamed live, 9:45 AM ET, at the Committee website.

You can also listen at AmericaBlogGay

Tomorrow the Senate, for the first time ever, will hold hearings on repealing DOMA: “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families.” It begins at 10 AM ET, and will include testimony from both opponents and proponents of DOMA.

Today, the Obama administration, for the first time, formally endorsed The Respect for Marriage Act.

Perhaps that means some significant evolving has taken place, including a realization that “God is in the mix” just might be a reason for supporting equality rather than perpetuating discrimination. Maybe it’s all 2012 politics, and the O campaign realizing it really is losing the support of significant numbers of LGBT people, and allies.

And maybe Obama, and/or his advisors, have also been influenced by what’s happening in New York. From Sudbay at AmericaBlog:

So many marriages are expected on July 24th in NYC that the Mayor has instituted a lottery system with a cap:
Demand for same-sex marriage in New York is so great that the city has decided to cap at 764 the number of couples who can be wed at clerks’ offices on Sunday ….
Mr. Bloomberg said the city would hold a lottery to determine which couples, gay or straight, will be allowed to marry at the five borough clerks’ offices. He said the 764 marriages would be the highest number ever performed by the city in a single day.

But as happy as that is, here’s the thing: as in other states, the marriage by same-gender couples in NY will not be recognized by the federal government. Repeal of DOMA would change that still very unequal part of “marriage equality.”

Via The Atlantic:

The president has ‘long called for a legislative appeal for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on families,’ White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing. He said the president ‘is proud’ to support the Respect For Marriage Act, ‘which would take the Defense of Marriage Act off the books for once and for all.’ …
The bill was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
In February, the Obama administration announced that the Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA in court.
On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the new bill, which would repeal all three sections of DOMA – which federally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman – including section 1, which is the name; section 2, which instructs states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.
Representatives from both pro- and anti-gay marriage groups will testify before the panel.

At Think Progress, Igor Volsky writes:

Feinstein’s bill currently has 27 Democratic co-sponsors. It would extend over 1,000 federal laws and protections to same-sex couples, including: the right to file joint federal income taxes and claim certain deductions, receive spousal benefits under Social Security, take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when a loved one falls seriously ill, and obtain the protections of the estate tax when one spouse passes and wants to leave his or her possessions to another.

The Courage Campaign doesn’t get a lot of national attention, but the California based organization has played a key role related to marriage equality. Adam Bink provides this about today’s events:

This morning, we held an emotional press conference in a packed media room at the National Press Club with Sen. Feinstein and three couples who commuted to DC to tell their stories. It was just incredible. …
Then, we got word from the White House that President Obama would heed the call of over 25,000 Courage Campaign members, and formally endorse the Respect for Marriage Act. Why is this a big deal? Because the White House rarely, if ever, endorses legislation that hasn’t passed a house of Congress… and this one hasn’t even passed committee yet. It underscores the urgency of this issue, and it also generates huge momentum to our efforts to bring more Senators on board. How many pro-LGBT Senators are going to let President Obama be ahead of them on this?

I’m not going to pretend to know what Bink was thinking when he wrote that last sentence, but my first thoughts were that given how painfully slow and convoluted Obama’s “evolution” on marriage equality has been, to be seen as less advanced than him really wouldn’t be a good thing for any “pro-LGBT” Elected.

Anyway, another step has been taken. Who knows where Obama will go from here – past experience says it’s just as likely to be backwards as forwards. Or that he’ll tread water indefinitely. But credit to him for today’s announcement. Now let’s see what happens in the hearings.

Photo of Jay Carney via Washington Blade.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Progressive Notes: Fight to Save Medicaid, Some Good Voter Rights News and Other Doings

By Art Pronin on 16 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Here is the latest ad up from National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. It is running in the DC area to influence our pols:

Progressive groups have descended upon this administration like mad over all the talk of cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid. One of import is MoveOn.org:

“Our members … worked incredibly hard to elect this president and were shocked that he would endorse cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits,” said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org.
His group released a poll of its members that showed 76 percent of respondents would be less likely to donate to or volunteer for Obama’s campaign if he cut Social Security. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee on Friday will deliver a petition with more than 180,000 signatures to the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago warning the president that if he cuts entitlements, “don’t ask for a penny of my money or an hour of my time in 2012.”

MoveOn has 5 million members and most threaten to sit out 2012 if Obama cuts away.

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AADP) has launched a campaign in DC to convince our pols to not make cuts on the already stricken Medicaid program:

Organizations representing the disabled brought families that would be affected by Medicaid cuts to the White House and to Capitol Hill this week.
“Medicaid has not until very, very recently had a voice at the table,” said Michael Hill, senior vice president for communications for United Cerebral Palsy. The group is working with the American Association of People with Disabilities on a campaign to bring “that human face to the discussion of the debt ceiling, particularly around Medicaid,” AAPD President and CEO Mark Periello said.

AAPD is working to put a face on those on Medicaid whose lives will be destroyed if these cuts go through. Some of those very disabled Americans met with Whitehouse officials on July 12th. Read about the meeting and who went here .

Two mothers met one on one with Obama advisor Valarie Jarrett this week to show how vital Medicaid is to millions:

When Shannon Saunders Eaton was born, doctors told her mother that she’d never walk or talk.
Twelve years later, she stood in front of a key White House aide and demonstrated how wrong her doctors had been.
Without Medicaid, Shannon told White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, “I wouldn’t be able to stand here today…”

It looks like the Whitehouse is getting an earful from the very people DC feels it can hurt:

Roxanne Eaton said Medicaid has been a lifeline for her and her daughter. When Shannon was born, Roxanne was forced to be a full-time caregiver because of her daughter’s disabilities. Medicaid helped Roxanne pay for her daughter’s three surgeries and physical therapy.
Now, her daughter is a firecracker of a 12-year-old who uses a wheelchair but can stand and wisecrack with the best of them. Roxanne, meanwhile, has been able to return to work, now at Easter Seals.
“Shannon has come so far,” her mother said. “Medicaid has, basically, been how Shannon got to be who she is.”
One hour after the Eatons visited the White House, Sue and Micah Hetrick of Dublin followed suit, making their own pitch to save Medicaid. Micah, 22, has Down syndrome. Medicaid has allowed him to get help from an aide during the day; that has allowed his mother to work, and allowed Micah a level of independence.

This is a cruel, unimaginable situation for these families. Let us pray these mothers are heard and heeded. Check out AADP’s and United Cerebal Palsy’s campaign to save Medicaid here.

The National Governor’s Association is protesting any further federal cuts in Medicaid funding. Comprised of all 50 governors they sent this letter to congress and POTUS . Dem and GOP governors have united against potential new cuts.

Why have so many united against Medicaid cuts? Families USA shows us why. Economics. A 5pct cut from the federal government in Medicaid spending would cost these 10 states alone billions and thousands of jobs:

…New York ($3.8 billion), California ($3.7 billion), Texas ($2.1 billion), Pennsylvania ($1.5 billion), Florida ($1.2 billion), Ohio ($1.2 billion), Illinois ($1.2 billion), Massachusetts ($1.0 billion), North Carolina ($942.1 million), and Michigan ($861.9 million).
And JOBS:
…New York (28,830), California (28,440), Texas (18,160), Pennsylvania (12,230), Florida (11,320), Ohio (11,270), Illinois (9,280), North Carolina (8,890), Michigan (7,670), and Massachusetts (7,600).

Senator McCaskill (D-Mo) will prove key in the Medicaid fight, as she is up for re-election and her state has a 1 in 5 ratio of folks on the program. This week she spoke to constituents about the program. Let’s hope she stands firm on this:

Jobs with Justice and many, many allies have been strongly urging Missouri’s Congressional delegation to protect Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security during the federal budget fight.
Success! Senator Claire McCaskill came to a rally in support of Medicaid on Tuesday hosted by dozens of groups, including Missouri’s GRO-Grassroots Organizing and CCO-Communities Creating Opportunities.
Sen. McCaskill spoke more passionately about protecting Medicaid than any of the other Senators who spoke. “The notion that cutting Medicaid will save tax dollars is mind boggling,” said Senator McCaskill. She added that her faith tells her that “we take care of people when they are sick.”

One last Medicaid note. AFSCME is pushing key moderate Dem senators to not back major cuts to the program. They are mounting an intense campaign in home states of moderate Dem senators with high Medicaid recipient populations: Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, California, Arkansas and Missouri. More here .

PCCC delivered 200,000 signatures from progressives all over America to Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago. The petitioners ask for the cuts to be dropped or Obama wouldn’t get their support in 2012. I found this woman’s remark of note:

Protester Mary Ellen Croteau, 61, of Chicago said she’s even ready to find someone else to support if Obama cuts Medicare and Social Security.
“I don’t know who I’m going to vote for yet because there doesn’t seem to be too many people on the horizon, but I will vote for someone whether it’s a Green candidate, whether it’s a communist, I don’t care. Somebody who’s going to stand up for people,” Croteau said.

On the voter rights side we have some good news: low income voter registration has increased over the past two years:

A newly released review of a June 27 report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) shows that voter registration application rates at state public assistance agencies have risen sharply following National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) enforcement actions by advocacy groups Demos, Project Vote, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and others. ..
The new data underscore the effectiveness of enforcement in giving low income Americans a voice in the democratic process,” said Lisa Danetz, Senior Counsel at Demos and co-lead counsel in a settled lawsuit against Ohio. “For example, Ohio topped the EAC list for voter registration at public assistance offices. As a result of our lawsuit, the state institutionalized procedures to offer voter registration. Those procedures will ensure that voter registration does not fall off the radar screen.”
Ohio and Missouri topped the rankings in reported voter registration applications submitted at public assistance offices. Both states have settled lawsuits regarding lack of National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) compliance, brought by Demos, Project Vote, the Lawyers’ Committee, and others….
Section 7 of the NVRA requires state public assistance agencies to offer their clients the opportunity to register to vote, but too many states have been neglecting or ignoring this mandate since the law was implemented in 1995. Demos, Project Vote, and the Lawyers’ Committee – with state and national partners – have worked to ensure stronger oversight and enforcement of Section 7 through cooperative negotiations and litigation when necessary.

Progressives in Ohio are moving to get the 200k signatures needed to place on the ballot a repeal of the GOP’s new voter restrictions. And former Ohio Sec. of State Brunner is leading the effort. The new law is a :

…sweeping measure that shortens the state’s early voting period, bans in-person early voting on Sundays and prohibits boards of election from mailing absentee ballot requests to voters. Former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, said those provisions place barriers on voters and should be repealed.
“It’s an accumulation of small procedural changes that add up to be the potential for long lines, dissatisfied voters and less certainty on election results,” she said in a telephone interview.

If they get enough signatures by late September the law faces repeal on the ballot likely in 2012. Governor Kaisch has once again angered voters and faces now another citizen effort to undo his anti-democratic agenda.

Here again is handy contact info for POTUS and congress. Keep bugging them AGAINST CUTTING SS, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID:

White House
White House Comments Line: 202-456-1111
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414
White House FAX: 202-456-2461
White House Email Page.
Congress
Capitol Switchboard: (202)224-3121
(Just ask for your Rep.’s or Senator’s office).
Look up your Representative’s / Senator’s contact information.
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
DNC by email .
DNC by phone: (202) 863-8000
DNC by snail mail: 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Social Networking:
White House Twitter ID: @WhiteHouse
White House Facebook Page .
Use TweetCongress to look up your Representative’s / Senator’s Twitter ID

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Queer Talk: Queerdom in the 2012 O-ligarchy

By Joyce Arnold on 16 July 2011

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

To abandon the President who has delivered on the overwhelming majority of his commitment to gays and lesbians to end discrimination, especially when the alternative is virtually guaranteed to be a President who will rapidly turn back the clock on gay and lesbian progress, would be a political mistake which would haunt gays and lesbians for decades.

So wrote Brian Bond, former executive director of the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. It was in a memorandum to the DNC and WH. In January 1996. As Andrew Harmon writes in an Advocate article, “A Clinton-era memo invites comparison: How should President Barack Obama’s stance on marriage be weighed against his administration’s accomplishments?”

Looking at Queerdom within the current moment of perpetual election recycling is one way to look at our Two Party Front for the Oligarchy (TPFO), Obama edition. As long as we stay stuck in the system as it exists, we stay vulnerable to Electeds and the Elite they serve.

The LGBT communities, and allies, are not monolithic. Yes, there is significantly more support for the Democratic party than the Republican party. But even within the “progressive” side of Queerdom, this moment in the TPFO reveals significant disagreements. In particular, of course, these differences appear around Obama and his “fierce, fierce advocate” claims regarding LGBT equality. Two of the most visible, and contentious: marriage equality and DADT.

About the latter, Thursday’s DOJ decision – telling the court it intends to continue to defend DADT, and seeking reinstatement of the law by the next day – received scathing comments from Left and Right Queerdom. (in all quotes below, my emphasis)

A tweet from Dan Choi: “Many hated me for criticizing Obama, screaming ‘GOP will revive #DADT’ so today proves it: “Obama only sees #LGBT as EA$Y MONEY.”

From Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:

Today it was learned that the Justice Department is going to be pushing the case Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States into an appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reinstated the ban on discharging anyone under (DADT). This move comes at a time when the service secretaries, service chiefs, and combatant commanders have delivered their assessments on DADT’s repeal to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
This makes the decision by the Justice Department to appeal this ruling baffling in the extreme. (Executive Director Aubrey) Sarvis reacted very negatively about it saying ‘At SLDN, we are frustrated by this last-minute filing, which could well add more delay and confusion for service members.’

Via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly, R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin, called the DOJ move “shameful.”

Aravosis at AmericaBlogGay quotes Cooper: “This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling.”

Also via Geidner:

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly,‘The Administration’s response to this latest development in the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit is unfathomable and confusing.(DADT)should be completely dead by now.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued a response. From Nicholson:

The Ninth Circuit did the right thing today in rejecting the core of the Obama Administration’s request to put (DADT) back into place.The situation with finally ending this outdated and discriminatory federal policy has become absolutely ridiculous. … The executive branch has been exceptionally unreasonable in the amount of time it has now let the legislative certification process drag out.

This is just the latest round from Queerdom in the Obama Version of the Oligarchy. Note the headlines to other recent stories:

Equality Matters, June 24, Kerry Eleveld: “Can Obama Bridge The Enthusiasm Gap?”
Metro Weekly, June 27, Chris Geidner: “Stunted Growth: Months after Obama announced he was ‘evolving’ on marriage equality, the process has stalled”
Washington Post, June 29, Editorial: “Time for President Obama to stand up for gay marriage.”
Dissenting Justice, June 29, Darren Hutchinson: “Why Do LGBT Activists Want Obama to Say He Supports Same-Sex Marriage?”
The Advocate, June 30, Andrew Harmon: “Obama: The Good Enough President?”
Equality Matters, July 1, Kerry Eleveld: “Why Obama Keeps Winning Gay Battles But Losing The War.”
Equality Matters, July 8, Kerry Eleveld: “Obama’s Second Chance At An LGBT Advisor.”
Log Cabin Republicans, July 11, Press Release: “Servicemembers Deserve Clarity from Obama on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

The stories attached to the headlines above are primarily from the Left, and critical of Obama. I did include one from Darren Hutchinson (and there are others who agree with him), that Obama is basically doing exactly what his words indicated he’d do, related to marriage. And of course the critique from the Log Cabin Republicans represents a conservative perspective. Taken together, and along with the latest DADT stupidity, it provides a snapshot of Queerdom in the Obama era of the TPFO.

A big part of the problem is the restrictions of the two party “you have nowhere else to go” structure. That means lots of finger pointing, and “my side’s better than your side” arguing – how horrible George W. Bush was; how horrible Barack Obama is. Get rid of the “other side’s” person, and then things will be different. That’s complicated by the conundrum of “what to do when ‘your’ president isn’t doing what you want.” Several problems with this, but mostly they come down to this: maintaining the structural status quo insures restricted choices. Or to put it another way, when party loyalty trumps good policy, we lose.

Among the words used in the DADT related quotes above: shameful, baffling, frustrated, doublespeak, unfathomable and confusing, outdated, discriminatory, ridiculous and unreasonable. You can add many others from the unhappy-with- Obama part of Queerdom, including Joe Sudbay’s “evolve already.” And “the gAyTM is closed,” which probably has the best chance of being heard by the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, Obama era or otherwise.

(To listen to an interview with Log Cabin Republican Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper, recorded on July 14, visit Queer Talk Radio.)

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Progressive Notes: More Black Women Would be Impoverished if SS Cuts Pass

By Art Pronin on 15 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

As President Obama and Congressman Cantor hash out trillions in cuts, which no economist says we can afford , our POTUS has tossed in cutting Social Security benefits among other programs. Let us be clear: these SS cuts will destroy lives in ways no Republican has been able to accomplish.

By ending COLA, which uses inflation to raise your benefit payments, most Americans would see by the year their SS checks get smaller. This is immoral and cruel. And as usual which group would pay the most of a price? Women. And among women black women will pay the worst fate.

African American women are most likely to be impoverished in this country. If COLA is abolished poverty will rise sharply, especially among black women. Strengthen Social Security, the progressive org fighting to save the program, is shouting from the rooftops against cuts:

According to the National Women’s Law Center’s analysis of Current Population Survey data, in their report on how the chained CPI would affect women, the median annual Social Security benefit for a 65-year-old single African American woman is $10,680. (By contrast, the median benefit for all single senior women is $13,200.)
That puts the median benefit for African American woman seniors just above the 2010 poverty line for individual seniors, which is an obscenely low $10,458.

So right now a black single woman on average gets just above poverty levels of SS. And what happens to black women if COLA is cut?

…by age 70–after just five years of collecting Social Security benefits–the median benefit for African American single women seniors would dip below the poverty line, and continue on a downward spiral as those women age, cutting nearly $1,000 by the time they reach age 95. …
…the median benefit would go below the poverty level for non-married African American women, and that a near-majority of non-married elderly African Americans rely on Social Security for all of their income–lead to the conclusion that the chained CPI would lead to an increase in poverty among elderly African Americans.
What is more, the fact that the chained CPI’s cuts increase as beneficiaries age will be especially harmful to African American women, who live longer than African American men. Life expectancy for African American women at age 65 is 83, compared with 79 for African American men.

So if these pols get their way black women face an even harder life in America. They live longer than black men and if COLA is scrapped more will face hellish poverty.

National Women’s Law Center has done a incredible report against ending COLA. In their report they highlight, for all women, the price that would be paid if cuts are made. I urge everyone to read their report here .

A graph from Strengthen SS starkly shows that many more seniors would face many hungry days with these cuts in place:

As someone on SSI the thought of anyone getting cuts in SS pay by the year is just sickening- literally.

I do not think the public is well educated on what is being hurriedly hashed in DC despite efforts by AARP and others running ad campaigns alerting folks to cuts. So it’s our job to spread the word as much as possible on facebook, by phone, and email (use the tools email feature on this page under this post). Hound your member of congress on this issue right now. Contact list:

White House
White House Comments Line: 202-456-1111
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414
White House FAX: 202-456-2461
White House Email Page.
Congress
Capitol Switchboard: (202)224-3121
(Just ask for your Rep.’s or Senator’s office).
Look up your Representative’s / Senator’s contact information.
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
DNC by email .
DNC by phone: (202) 863-8000
DNC by snail mail: 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Social Networking:
White House Twitter ID: @WhiteHouse
White House Facebook Page .
Use TweetCongress to look up your Representative’s / Senator’s Twitter ID

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Progressive Notes: Quit Playing with My Life.

By Art Pronin on 09 July 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

The reason I have been a Democrat is because Dems are supposed to protect Social Security and the welfare state. Dems, the real ones, back progressive taxation. I found out about the hard way the wonders that leaders like FDR and LBJ achieved for our nation. Many years ago, in college, I got sick with food poisoning. The illness damaged nerves in my gut and I have struggled ever since with debilitating stomach issues. Overnight my life changed. Literally.

I had private medical insurance through my father, but we couldn’t make the bills with the insurance. The copays, fees and worse broke me financially. I had trouble working due to my illness. I filed for disability, and after a two year battle, got Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Without this I do not know what would have happened to me; the progressive agenda saved me.

Overnight I, like many, went from middle class to poor. I have been in food stamp lines many times. You see SSI gives me little to live on, say $700 a month. Food stamps are essential so I had to get them. Not a day goes by when I do not think of those poor people waiting around the block for food stamps. There is no shame in being poor. No shame in having become so ill you need the government to help you. Yet leaders in both parties attack the vulnerable.

Our pols today are a joke. DC is a joke. Truly. Their church now is austerity. The cuts Obama and the GOP have agreed to so far have dashed hopes in my life and those of so many others. Obama agreed to massive HUD cuts. The waiting list now to get a Section 8 voucher is even longer than before. The list has been CLOSED for 3 years here. Now I cannot apply until 2014. So all those thousands in need of a place to live must wait because of the budget cuts. Our government has never given enough to help those in need, but this is beyond the pale.

No other western nation makes the disabled impoverished like we do. None. I already get so very little to live on, cannot get a voucher to pay for a apartment due to the Obama/GOP cuts, while other programs are being demolished here in Texas and elsewhere.

Too many people do not seem to get how essential Medicaid and Sect. 8 is to millions of lives. Medicaid seems expendable to many I know. Medicaid is already almost worthless. If you need a specialist good luck. It pays doctors so badly it’s not hard not to imagine people dying of lack of care; but it pays hospital and basic primary care. And yet many Dems and Republicans are eager to carve away this program. The same goes for HUD and Sect. 8. Making people in need of housing wait a decade to get a voucher is criminal. Yet pols hack away.

Cuts of a billion here and there. It sounds all so painless in the abstract. But these cuts crush lives. Crush dreams. Crush dignity. The Church of Austerity must be destroyed.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Queer Talk: Marriage According to those who have it Right

By Joyce Arnold on 09 July 2011

Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose column “Queer Talk” appears regularly on Saturdays, and occasionally on other days of the week.

This QT column could also be called, “I’m Right, and you’re Left out,” since it’s about more than marriage. Just like DADT is about more than servicemembers, DOMA is about more than couples who want to get legally married. ENDA is about more than civil rights in the work place. It’s all connected, all the bits and pieces, of varying sizes and significance, in the long struggle toward equality. And although Obama’s choices regarding LGBT equality are obviously significant, all of this, including marriage, is about much more than Obama. He has both helped and hindered. On marriage in particular, a Democratic president to the Right of popular opinion, and of some Republicans, basing his argument on states’ rights, isn’t subtle or clever. Whatever he’s thinking, the states’ rights argument means, in practice, that if you’re LGBT (among other groups), states are just as free to discriminate against you as they are to provide civil rights.

Pam Spaulding, at Houseblend, recently wrote:

… the states have varying laws on the books related to marriage, but what we have going on can and should be addressed by this President – we have states embracing equality, while other states are enshrining bigotry into their state constitutions against a class of citizens at the ballot box.
He knows this is wrong; and it will give comfort to our foes who will quote the President with glee in their campaigns to pass marriage amendments.
For those of us in states facing institutionalized oppression, the perspective of ‘progress’ looks very different when you are sitting where further battles loom, as opposed to areas where equality is blooming. There is thinking that exists in abundance in the LGBT community (usually couched in the legal abstract) that helps generates the willingness to see ‘throw away states’ – where LGBTs will suffer – as mere speed bumps on the way to equality.

For many of us already in “throw away states,” the battle is to undo the damage already done. I rejoiced at the big marriage win in New York, but for those of us in the 29 states with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to “one man, one woman,” and the 12 states with laws doing the same thing, listening to Obama extol the right of state legislatures, and the right of a majority of citizens to vote on the rights of a minority, is not encouraging.

And just to be clear, these mini-DOMAs and state constitutional amendments are not restricted to “the South.” Via the Human Rights Campaign, states with constitutional amendments:

Alabama (2006), Alaska (1998), Arizona (2008), Arkansas (2004), California (2008), Colorado, Florida (2008), Georgia (2004), Kansas (2005), Idaho (2006), Kentucky (2004), Louisiana (2004), Michigan (2004), Mississippi (2004), Missouri (2004), Montana(2004), Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), North Dakota (2004), Ohio (2004), Oklahoma (2004),Oregon (2004), South Carolina (2006), South Dakota (2006), Tennessee (2006), Texas (2005), Utah (2004), Virginia(2006) and Wisconsin (2006).

States with laws: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

And, there are 18 states “where the law or amendment has language that does, or may, affect other legal relationships, such as civil unions or domestic partnership. … : Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.”

DOMA, of course, was signed into law by Bill Clinton. It’s been under attack in the courts fairly consistently since. Via the NYTimes:

Last year, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the law unconstitutional as it applied to same-sex couples for issues like inheritance taxes and federal health and pension benefits. President Obama has expressed his opposition to DOMA, and in February the Justice Department announced that it would not defend it in court …

The comments above, from Spaulding, introduced an article by regular guest contributor Rev. Irene Monroe, “Obama harkens backs to slavery with ‘states’ rights’ for same-sex marriage.”

The fight for marriage equality in the U.S. is similar to my ancestors’ fight for freedom. In their day, before the Civil War in 1861, the U.S. consisted of nineteen free states and fifteen slave states….
As LGBTQ Americans, we’re not in slavery, but we certainly will be in a civil war as each state battle this issue. Whereas President Lincoln acted on behalf of my ancestor’s civil rights, we need to call on Obama to move on ours.
‘The President has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat,’ said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. ‘This states’ rights argument is a separate but equal argument.’ …
While our President states his opinion is still ‘evolving’ on this issue, he needs to know that we LGBTQ Americans and our families want to sample what he and Michelle and every heterosexual married couple take for granted – marriage, not marriage-lite.

Of course, Democratic-lite Electeds are part of the problem. Comparatively speaking, an “evolving” president is better than other alternatives. For an admittedly extreme contrast, Michele Bachmann said, in 2004, that “in the gay marriage issue, legalizing a new status – if you will, redefining in a sense what it is to be man, woman, what it is to be human … ” Bachmann is defining not just marriage, but what it means to be “human.”

She doesn’t seem to have evolved since then. On Thursday of this week, she was, according to The Advocate, “first in line to sign a new pledge affirming her belief that gay men are a public health risk, that gay parents are inferior to straight parents, and that homosexuality is a choice.”

By such comparisons, evolving can sound, if not good, at least better. But neither “better” nor “good” is equal. Ultimately, that’s the only standard by which Electeds should be measured. For that matter, it’s a standard for “we the people,” too.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Dems Push Against Voter I.D. Laws

By Art Pronin on 29 June 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

In New Hampshire Governor Lynch has just vetoed voter ID there! Every Democratic governor has nixed such legislation. Read Lynch’s statement here, it is excellent highlighting the fact that “fraud” is almost non-existant and thus no need to disenfranchise thousands.

Democrats on the Hill are pushing the DOJ to crackdown on voter suppression tactics:

The letter — written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and signed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Mark Begich (AK), Ben Cardin (MD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Patty Murray (WA), Ron Wyden (OR), Tom Harkin (IA), Herb Kohl (WI) and Tom Udall (NM) — comes as Wisconsin, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kansas and Tennessee have already passed voter ID measures.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) questioned DOJ’s Thomas Perez about the Department’s review of voter ID laws at a hearing earlier this month. Perez said that the Justice Department was reviewing all of the laws that had been passed under Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Read their letter to Attorney General Holder here.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Queer Talk: ‘Human Rights’ (Hillary), ‘States’ Rights’ (Obama)

By Joyce Arnold on 28 June 2011

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

Two events on Monday of this week added to the conversations about marriage equality. One was from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who talked about international LGBT rights as “human rights.” And one from White House press secretary Jay Carney – responding to questions about marriage between same-gender couples from The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Bill Press from The Bill Press Show – who talked about “states’ right”. It’s worth noting, as does Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner, that Meckler and Press are not among the “Five writers with LGBT outlets or known for their LGBT writing” who were at the briefing, but not called on by Carney.

The context for both are the unhappy sounds from Queerdom and allies regarding the Obama administration’s spins on LGBT rights, at this moment, particularly marriage equality. To be clear, Clinton’s speech was not a response to the New York vote or a direct challenge to Obama, in whose cabinet she serves. But the contrast between LGBT equality framed as “human rights” and “states’ rights” is still relevant.

On Monday, Clinton spoke at an event co-hosted by the Department of State, and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. The scheduled event was in celebration of LGBT Pride Month, and included a panel discussion lead by Under Sec. Maria Otero regarding the status of LGBT people around the world.

You can read the transcript of Clinton’s remarks here. Video here.

She began:

… this is an especially momentous and extraordinary time for us to meet for the State Department’s annual Pride celebration, the third event we’ve had here at State since I became Secretary, and the first following the historic vote in New York, which I think gives such visibility and credibility to everything that so many of you have done over so many years …

Later in the speech, she added this:

If you followed closely … the debate in New York, one of the key votes that was switched at the end was a Republican senator from the Buffalo area who became convinced that it was just not any longer fair for him to see one group of his constituents as different from another. Senators stood up and talked about nieces and nephews and grandchildren and others who are very dear to them, and they don’t want them being objectified or discriminated against. And from their own personal connections and relationships, they began to make the larger connection with somebody else’s niece or nephew or grandchild and what that family must feel like.

No, she doesn’t say, “I support marriage equality,” and yes, I wish she would. Of course, as long as she’s Sec. of State, it’s highly unlikely she will. We’ll see about later. But I think it’s worth noting who she singles out: “a Republican senator from Buffalo.” Obviously the focus should be at the state level, not DC. But I, at least, find it significant that there is no mention of the Obama administration’s position on marriage equality. The only way she could have done that, of course, would have been to follow the same strange story line coming out of the WH, which among other things, emphasizes the right of states to make such decisions.

As AmericaBlog’s Sudbay writes about the WH “sticking with the ‘it’s for the states to decide’ talking point”:

This is when we realize that the White House really is very insular. The people who work there must have no concept of how ridiculous their talking points on same-sex marriage sound in the real world … .

I’d just add, Insider and Access individuals and organizations who continue indefinite support of the administration which is using such “talking points” also appear “very insular.”

Clinton goes on to highlight some of the successful efforts toward LGBT human rights on the international scene, from Honduras to Slovakia, as well as steps taken in the UN, including by the Human Rights Council, two weeks ago, which passed “the first ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of LGBT people worldwide.” She notes, however, that “all this progress is worth celebrating, but we cannot forget how much work lies ahead. Because let’s just face the facts: LGBT people in many places continue to endure threats, harassment, violence … in public and private.”

As for that Carey “states’ rights” press briefing, an excerpt, via Metro Weekly:

Meckler asked, ‘[L]ast week the President spoke about gay marriage when he
was in New York and … talked about how this has been the province of the state … referring to what was happening in the debate in New York, he said that’s the power of democracy at work. Does that mean that he also respects the outcome of democracy at work in California where voters rejected the idea of gay marriage?’ …
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think as you saw in the decision we announced that we would no longer – this administration would no longer be participants defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we do not believe it’s constitutional, that it’s precisely because of his belief that this was a matter that needs to be decided by the states. So without commenting on a particular other state, I think he was making that clear with regard to the action in New York

Carney’s responses to follow-up questions from Meckler, and then from Press, didn’t get any better.

In addition to Clinton’s speech providing some comparison and context, Carey’s remarks also came as not only LGBTs and “progressives,” but mainstream media and conservatives, question Obama’s stance on marriage equality. From a column by Maureen Dowd in which she writes “Our president likes to be on both sides at once,” and an NY Times editorial, “Gay Marriage: Where’s Mr. Obama?,” to comments from former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in which he says, “I was wrong about same-sex marriage,” and the reports that, among other Republicans, Ken Melhman, former head of the RNC, “played a key role in the NY marriage victory” – it’s clear that a “states’ rights” framing isn’t working.

I’m not sure which is worse: If the WH doesn’t realize that, or if it does and continues with the spin anyway. Whatever, it’s certainly not an example of leading. Or even of very good politics.

(An earlier, “In the News” version of this piece has additional quotes from Secretary of State Clinton’s “The Human Rights of LGBT People and U.S. Foreign Policy” speech.)

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Progressive Notes: Congress is a “Gutless Body,” DREAMers Press Obama, and Other Goings On..

By Art Pronin on 25 June 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anyone who reads this blog I want them to watch this video and forward it to everyone you know. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)delivers a sweeping powerful speech on behalf of a nation in need. She opposed the Wall St. bailout bill because it gave nothing to Main St. Now she speaks against the agriculture bill which will cut food for 350,000 women and children. She speaks against the banks and Wall St. who make big profits while the GOP House slashes funding for those so vulnerable.

Something is very wrong with this nation’s leadership and she goes there. Kaptur reads letters from the starving in her district. Takes the companies to task and more. Her words that Congress is a “gutless body” speaks for the people. Thank you Rep. Kaptur:

The Progressive Caucus is touring the nation for the People’s Budget and holding forums with folks. Here is their first in Minneapolis MN June 18th. Wow looks great. The people are getting restless for change:

Key Progressive Caucus figure Congresswoman Woolsey won’t run in 2012. Despite my criticism of some of her handling of the healthcare debate for progressives i.e. not pushing single payer as bargaining start point, she is one of the most potent voices in congress for the poor. Woolsey herself was once on welfare and is the only current member of congress who was on welfare.

Her voice against the Iraq War for day one grew in power and she joined Murtha into a coalition to end the war. Woolsey speaks with moral authority on cuts made to social programs because she once needed them and used them. No other member of congress has this unique perspective.

Congressman Gutierrez (D-Il) is launching a campaign in the Latino community to pressure Obama to use executive power to prevent deportations of illegal immigrants:

In a meeting with bloggers last week, longtime immigrant rights advocate Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said President Barack Obama should not count on Latinos to vote for him in 2012 unless he takes executive action to stop some deportations.
…
In a frank discussion with bloggers at the progressive conference Netroots Nation, Gutierrez said he will encourage Latinos to withhold votes from Obama unless the president uses his discretion.
The main demand is to block deportation of families and young men and women who would benefit from the DREAM Act, a failed bill that would have allowed some undocumented people who entered the U.S. as children to gain legal status and attend college or join the military.
Gutierrez, who carries considerable clout among Latinos, is touring the country under the banner “Change Takes Courage” to rally support for administrative relief from deportations.
He said in order to win support, Obama should create deferred action or parole for DREAM Act-eligible young people, allowing them to live and work in the U.S. until Congress acts on immigration reform. Instead, the administration often carries deportation proceedings to nearly the last minute, then allows an immigrant to stay after public outrage.
“They stop the deportation when you do a little petition. When Change.org does a petition and gets a few hundred signatures, they stop the deportation,” Gutierrez said. “Don’t tell me you ain’t got the power.”

He brings up 2007 Obama:

Gutierrez said the first sign of Obama’s triangulation strategies on immigration came in 2007, when the then-senator voted for a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico.
Latino leaders in Illinois were furious, and Gutierrez said Obama called him for an explanation.
“I should have known something then,” he said. “He didn’t get it, but he said to me, ‘I’ve got to show the Republicans that I’m someone that they can work with.’ It’s still the same person.”
The problem, Gutierrez said, is that Obama continues to court Latino votes despite failing to follow through with immigration reform, which polls consistently list as among the top five issues for Latino voters.

Rep. Gutierrez is not concerned about telling Latinos to withold their votes from Obama if he does not make moves on immigration reform. Why? :

“It’s always the same conversation: If we do too much it will hurt Obama?” he said. “Civil rights and human rights movements cannot be so closely aligned with parties because they’re going to eventually have contradictions. I think of Rosa Parks and I think of her getting on that bus and saying, ‘Will this upset the Speaker?’ … They didn’t think about what was going to happen to a particular party. They moved.”

Had enough of Afghanistan? So has America and revolt is growing fast in Congress. Obama thought he could throw out a breadcrumb of removing 30,000 troops soon, but we would still have more troops there than when Bush was in office. So Congressmen McGovern and Jones keep pushing to end this war. They almost in fact forced Obama to withdrawal in short order a month ago, but their bill failed by a few votes. Now its on:

At an event today sponsored by the Center for American Progress, McGovern and Jones said President Obama’s Afghanistan withdrawal plan he announced last night does not go far enough. “We need to get all the troops out of Afghanistan sooner than 2014, because 2014 will become 2015 and so on, and it will be a never-ending exit date,” Jones said.
In an interview with Think Progress after the event, both lawmakers stressed that they’re not giving up their efforts in Congress. “I think the anti-war movement in Congress is going to continue to grow and intensify,” McGovern said. Jones said he’s optimistic that he can peel away more Republicans to their side:
JONES: Republicans are beginning to understand that trying to police the world, you can’t pay for it. That’s what Republicans are beginning to understand. [...] What I’m trying to do on our side is to get more Republicans to join on the bill. Because that in itself sends a signal. But I believe, as Jim said, we’re not going away. [...]
TP: Are there a lot more Republicans talking to you privately?
JONES: Oh yeah.

Congressman Garamendi (D-Ca) is pushing for an end to this war. He warns if Obama doesn’t heed the calls of the nation and congress on rapidly withdrawing:

“he’s [Obama] going to have a revolt in Congress. Congress has had it.”

Governor Perdue of NC did it! She vetoed the voter ID the GOP passed. Hundreds of thousands would have lost their right to vote by having to try and get an ID due to distance from the DMV, work, disability, you get the picture. And looks like this time the GOP won’t be able to override her veto:

“Perdue’s veto is likely to succeed, rather than be overridden. The CBS affiliate in Raleigh points out that while the bill had passed the state Senate by a veto-proof margin, it had in fact only passed the state House by a margin of 62-51, short of the 72 votes that would be needed to override the veto in that chamber.
Perdue’s full veto message:
Governor Perdue Vetoes House Bill 351
Calls on Legislature to Pass Bill that Protects Votes Instead of Taking Them Away
Gov. Bev Perdue today vetoed House Bill 351 and issued the following statement:
The right to choose our leaders is among the most precious freedoms we have – both as Americans and North Carolinians. North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.
“We must always be vigilant in protecting the integrity of our elections. But requiring every voter to present a government-issued photo ID is not the way to do it. This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.
“There was a time in North Carolina history when the right to vote was enjoyed only by some citizens rather than by all. That time is past, and we should not revisit it.
“Therefore, I veto this bill.”

Van Jones, along with many other orgs, are launching a anti-austerity group to counter the Tea Party. And it sounds promising to me:

Along with MoveOn, some of the most influential groups in the progressive community have signed on to the “Dream” campaign, including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Campaign for America’s Future and the Center for Community Change.
..The goal is to move beyond dependence on President Obama and the national Democratic Party by building and boosting independent sources of power, which can then persuade elected officials to support a progressive economic agenda. David Dayen of Firedoglake summarized this nicely after watching Jones’s speech at Netroots Nation:
It’s also a moment to create a movement based on principle. In a very telling moment in Jones’s PowerPoint presentation, he described how the issue groups filtered up to the Obama meta-brand in 2008, and in one move, he wiped out Obama from the picture in favor of the American Dream Movement. In other words, an icon or a symbol of progress won’t cut it anymore. The movement is sustained not based on an individual but on an idea. It’s a movement that says “I support Democrats when they support me.” It’s the only way for a movement to endure, rather than become subservient to a personality. And we’ve seen proof of this just this year in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.
The first step, Jones says, will be to create a giant crowd-sourced document and hold thousands of house parties over the summer to solicit ideas for a new “Contract for the American Dream.” The coalition will then use that document as an organizing and activism tool, pressing elected politicians to support the “Dream” agenda, possibly as early as over the August Congressional recess. These efforts will be bookended by the national Take Back the American Dream Conference in October. Maybe by that point, Washington will start to take notice.

The Senate HELP Committee heard testimony from real America, the broken middle class. the testimony was potent and moved the room and senators- a few that is. The Dems on the committee attended and only one Repub did- Sen. Enzi. The Senate is so dysfunctional nothing can pass it appears. Voices must be heard as they were this week:

“Families who are scraping by every day see no real relief in sight,” Amanda Greubel, an Iowa mother of two, told a roomful of US senators Thursday morning. “We hear that corporate welfare continues and CEOs get six-figure bonuses at taxpayer expense, and we look across the kitchen table at our families eating Ramen noodles for the third time this week…. We know that money talks around here, and that means you don’t hear us.”…
Greubel and her husband work for the public school system in DeWitt, Iowa, and both had their salaries reduced during recent state spending cuts. She tried to convey to the committee the real effect it had on her family. “The loss of that income required a complete financial, emotional, and spiritual overhaul in our family,” Greubel testified, describing shopping trips to Goodwill stores and discount supermarkets, and cold cereal for her children at dinnertime. “We did everything that all the experts said we should do, and yet we’re still struggling. When you work as hard as we have and still sometimes scrape for the necessities, it really gets you down.”

The GOP has slashed funding for food programs, tried to eliminate WIC while Biden and these same monsters are attempting a insane debt ceiling deal. We must keep fighting these forces no matter what.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Queer Talk: Why is this man smiling? UPDATED

By Joyce Arnold on 25 June 2011

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

Why is this man smiling? (via Rod 2.0)

Why the big smile from Obama, this past Thursday night, while at the “Gala with the Gay Community” in Manhattan? This was the day before the New York state Senate followed the Assembly’s earlier vote in passing the bill that made New York the latest state to provide legal marriage for same-gender couples, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia. NY is the first GOP controlled state legislature to do this, and the fact that some of those affirmative GOP votes were cast by legislators who spoke from the floor Friday night about undergoing a change, of, in other words, “evolving” on the issue, adds to the mounting evidence that this is a “bending of the arc of history toward justice” movement.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama had to acknowledge the then still on-going debate, but he still didn’t say, “I support same-gender marriage.” The big smile was, I’d guess, because he had the endorsement of “the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization” (the tag line for HRC) before his campaign really kicked off, and will use that to claim the support of the LGBT communities. And, because he’s looking out at a crowd of 600 people who paid between $1250 and $35,800 to be there.

Although he didn’t use it Thursday, Obama fairly often refers to the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. – “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice ….” In the last few weeks, it’s been other words from Obama that have gotten a lot of attention. Some time back, America Blog’s Joe Sudbay asked Obama about his position on marriage equality, to which the president responded that it’s “evolving.” Since then, Sudbay’s phrase has been widely picked up: Evolve Already.

“Bending” and “evolving” go together. It’s the Non-Insider and Access people who do much of the very often unacknowledged hard work that “bends” the arc of history toward justice, and makes “evolving” happen. Of course there are leaders and organizations who play significant roles, for or against, in the work toward equality. Certainly that was true in NY. One of the jobs of the majority of us in the Non-I & A group is to find ways to deal with the power of such individuals and organizations, as well as that of Electeds. That’s a part of what we’re seeing play out now in the nation’s LGBT communities.

Obama placed himself in the role of “fierce advocate,” he chose the “evolving” framework. Advocacy includes letting him know when we see his failures in his self-appointed role, as well as the failures of Access complicity. Whether Obama ever gets to the evolved stage of seeing same gender couples as deserving of equal rights (and if he doesn’t, then he also doesn’t see individual LGBTs as equal) isn’t unimportant. He’s in the WH. He’s Democratic Party Leader in Chief. This isn’t just about his personal evolution.

But we can’t get stuck at that point, either, with a focus solely on him. If you ignore him, you leave the “evolving” cover unchallenged. If you limit your focus to just him, you let lots of other people off the hook. Pointing accurately critical fingers at DC Electeds and Insiders is essential, but no more so than work on state and local levels. In fact, more often than not, I think that’s where the absolutely critical work is done.

This is where LGBTs and allies find ourselves regarding Barack Obama – how much time and effort should be spent on trying to push him, along with that arc of history, toward justice? I’m certainly not alone in observing that Mr. Obama’s “evolving” language, like his “fierce advocacy” language, seems as much about providing rainbow flag-like cover as anything else. If we let it.

I’ve seen the arguments that Obama’s multiple and not always consistent “positions” on marriage equality are actually a part of a plan, that playing out his “evolving” on the national stage is a calculated move, meant to teach the nation. That sounds like an “11 dimensional chess” claim to me. It also sounds very convenient, and sometimes, a little desperate.

Holding Obama accountable is imperative. But even more essential is moving on, with or without him. And many are doing that – see NY.

Inside the Gala, Obama heard from a few in the crowd who called out asking about marriage. Good for them. Obama basically made a joke, the crowd laughed, and he moved on. Outside the Gala, GetEQUAL and others protested. The LGBT media and blogs, and even the mainstream media, focused on the contrast of Obama’s back and forth positions on marriage equality, (see a timeline here) / a “gala gay” fundraiser, and the drama playing out in the NY Senate.

Go here to read the transcript of Obama’s speech to the Gala group. Here’s how it ends:

And that’s the story of progress in America. That’s what all of you represent – of the stubborn refusal to accept anything less than the best that this country can be. And with your help, if you keep up the fight, and if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. And we are going to leave a new generation with a brighter future and a more hopeful future. And I’ll be standing there, right there with you.

Keep up the fight, he says, by devoting your energies, and giving your money, to my campaign. In fact, and all the while, at state and local levels, queer activists and allies do keep on fighting. That’s what happened in New York. Not that those working at state and local levels aren’t aware of the power of the DC Electeds and Elites. But these folks are quite capable of letting their concerns and expectations be known to those in DC, while simultaneously working to hold back local anti-LGBT efforts, and push forward toward equality.

I wish someone would hold some Gala fundraisers for them, at local and state levels. That could help bend that arc of history toward justice, and equality.

For now, congratulations to NY – Non-Insider and Access; the bi-partisan coalition of organizations; the Electeds, legislative and executive, who were already there and those who evolved. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, the District of Columbia, New York. Next?

UPDATE: Last night, from Pam of Houseblend:

I’m in Tampa, FL for the National Organization for Women conference, and conventioneers were celebrating off-the-hook in tiaras singing ‘New York, New York’ after the news about the vote. I was in the suite of NOW Action Vice President Erin Matson Tweeting the action.

Today, from Joe at AmericaBlog: “White House issued perfunctory statement on New York marriage. Seriously: Evolve Already.” This really is of the “must read” category. Joe writes: “I’m really glad I didn’t read the White House statement on marriage last night. It’s really embarrassing. Might have been useful circa 2004. …”

He provides information about the statement, via Chris Johnson, which includes (emphasis in original):

‘The president has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples,’ Inouye said. ‘That’s why he has called for repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and determined that his administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.’
Maybe within the confines of the White House that statement makes sense. But, in the real world, it sounds pathetic.

(photo via Rod 2.0 )

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

UPDATED Queer Talk: The Political is Very Personal

By Joyce Arnold on 18 June 2011

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

UPDATE at end

I write a lot about the personal level of advocacy. Equality is ultimately about the real lives of real people. It certainly includes bigger pictures and issues; requires organizing and cooperative efforts, law suits and lobbying. But what it all “means,” finally, is played out in daily living.

The words I want to highlight here are those of someone I know, about the birth of her and her wife’s son. I’m using it with their permission, changing names for privacy reasons.

This legally married couple, in Iowa, just like legally married same-gender couples in every state which allows it, do not have any of the 1100 + federal protections provided by marriage of opposite-gender couples. Extra legal steps (which naturally come with fees) are needed, including regarding parental rights.

Lynn and Ann happily and excitedly anticipated the birth of their son. And while things turned out well, there was a very frightening period of time when that outcome wasn’t at all certain. Lynn wrote this two weeks after the birth of James (emphasis mine).

“No new parent should ever have to experience the fear of the very real possibility of losing both his/her wife and child during childbirth. No parent should ever have to wonder, as they watch the surgical team wheel his/her laboring wife into the OR, if he/she will ever see her alive again and whether or not the baby will make it. …
For the sake of perspective, let’s talk about the thoughts and emotions that I would share with a male partner in this situation. The first thing that crossed my mind was that we might lose James. His heart rate had dropped dangerously low in the last minutes that I had been with Ann. Would they get him out in time? Would he be okay? …
Then as time went on, I started to worry that it was taking too long. What if things went wrong? What if Ann was having complications? What if I lost them both? How would I go on? Any spouse/parent in my situation would have these thoughts, but this is the point where a big difference needs to be pointed out. I dealt with another scenario…one that no male partner in my situation would ever have to consider.
What if I lost my beloved wife, but my son made it? Would they let me take custody or would I lose him too? We did not take the extra legal steps to protect my parental rights as much as possible before delivery. Honestly, no matter how much paperwork we’d done, there would still have been fear, because even ‘as much as possible’ is no guarantee. Our family does not have the same legal protections as ‘traditional’ families. Even in a state (Iowa) where we are legally married, I do not have the right to be on James’ birth certificate without first adopting him.
Would I lose my wife and have my son survive only to lose him too? Why would anyone deny me the right to raise a child I love with my whole heart, a child I helped nurture during pregnancy, just because I am a woman who loves another woman? … Even some ‘traditional’ couples have to employ the same methods we did to expand their families. The men in those relationships are not denied the right to be on the birth certificate. … They are the assumed parent. Why should I be treated as any less? Doesn’t my son deserve legal protections for his family?
I know there are people who are reading this right now who would step into a voting booth and vote against gay marriage. I can only hope that reliving this heart wrenching time has been worth it by making you think about changing your stance or at least by giving you a personal perspective. Gay marriage is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. Marriage offers couples basic protections that even my family is entitled to. I’m not going to walk into a church that doesn’t want me and demand to be married. I just want to rest easy knowing that my family is protected under the law. I refuse to settle for anything less. Why would you want to deny me, Ann, and James that protection?

What inequality “means” is what you hear in Lynn’s words.

And what you hear, in a different but related way, in Dan Choi’s words on Thursday at Netroots Nation, as a member of a panel discussion, ‘What To Do When The President Is Just Not That Into You.” An Obama for America volunteer (Nick Tschida) handed an OFA flyer (which Choi soon tears apart) to the panel. Via Think Progress: (YouTube video here. Also see T4H’s “Netroots Nation 2011 Shows Progressives’ Anger” at TM.)

NICK TSCHIDA (Obama volunteer): I can’t say I’m for marriage equality, but as a bisexual man, I would take a bullet for both of you.
CHOI: You say you’re not for marriage equality?
TSCHIDA: I can’t, no as a….
[RIPPING SOUND]
CHOI: Did you not understand? Here! I believe that I’m an equal citizen.
TSCHIDA: I understand that, but Obama hasn’t gone officially on record for it…
CHOI: Then, don’t tell me that I’m a bad person, go tell him that he should believe in my full equality and then report back. …

One last voice, this one from commenter “fierce urgency of whenever,” at Joe.My.God, in response to this incident: “There’s no middle ground on civil rights.”

In the real lives of real people, a “middle ground,” “lesser of two evils,” “evolving” position makes very concrete, immediate differences, say at a difficult birth of a child.

You don’t refuse the gains of incremental steps. But you don’t pretend it’s enough. And you sure as hell don’t offer excuses and just wait for your “leader” to evolve.

UPDATE

Lynn let me know that she and Ann had a religious commitment ceremony before they were allowed to legally marry in Iowa, but “did it with a minister who was welcoming and even excited to perform the ceremony. The spritual component of our commitment is very important to us BUT religion should not be used to deny a CIVIL right. That was my point.”

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Netroots Nation 2011 Shows Progressives’ Anger UPDATED

By Art Pronin on 17 June 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

freespeechtv on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Thousands of progressive activists are in Minneapolis for the annual Netroots Nation conference. And boy talk about headlines that should alarm the DNC and POTUS.

Russ Feingold at Netroots Nation was the keynote speaker and his words are making headlines. He goes after corporate Democrats and how all this money is corrupting the Democratic Party:

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold said he hoped that Obama will be re-elected, but he urged the president to stand up to corporate interests, demanding that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling become a focal point of the 2012 campaign.
“Sometimes we have to be very direct with the Democratic Party. Just as you have long pushed our Democrats to stand up for their ideals, I’m here this evening to ask you to redouble your efforts because I fear that the Democratic Party is in danger of losing its identity,” Feingold said in his keynote address to a crowd of around 2,400 progressive activists and bloggers here at the Minneapolis Convention Center, the most ever for the event.
Specifically, Feingold ripped Priorities USA, a super political action committee started last spring by former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton.
“I think it’s a mistake for us to take the argument that they like to make that, ‘Well, what we’re going to do now is, we’re going to take the corporate money like the Republicans do and then after we win, we’ll change it.’ When’s the last time anyone did that? Most people don’t change the rules after they win by them. It doesn’t usually happen. It never happens,” Feingold said. “You know what? I think we’ll lose anyway if we do this. We’ll lose our soul when it comes to the issue of corporate domination. People will see us as weak. People will see us as corporate-lite. We’ll gut our message. I think it’s not just wrong, I think it’s a dumb strategy. It’s dumb because people will not believe us if we do this, so I strongly disagree with those who are trying to create these PACs. I know people want to win. I understand that. I like to win, too. And I know that today’s Republican party has found more ways to play dirty, so I empathize with the desire to fight fire with fire, but Democrats should just never be in the business of taking unlimited corporate contributions. It’s dancing with the devil and it’s a game that we will never win.”
“It’s not just campaigns and contributions,” Feingold noted. “We have to say to the president, ‘Mr. President, Jeff Immelt is not the right guy – the CEO of GE is not the right guy to be running your Jobs & Competitiveness Council, not when your company doubled its profits, increased his compensation, and asked its workers to take huge pay and benefits cuts.”

Feingold urged activists to call out the Democratic Party leaders when they make errors and hold them accountable. He also advised Obama to push campaign reform:

He urged the president to make reforming a corrupt system central to his reelection campaign messaging.
Fighting the abuses made possible by the Citizens United ruling, and taking the steps necessary to overturn it, should be a pivotal plank of the president’s 2012 campaign, Feingold said.
“It should be in every speech, every statement,” Feingold said of the reform message.
“We can overturn Citizens United,” Feingold said, recalling that a single appointment to the Supreme Court could tip the balance against the corporate interests. “But to get there, the influence of corporate interests in these campaigns has to be front and center.”
And the netroots crowd can put in there, the former senator said.
“Together, we can call out the Democratic Party when it strays from its ideals,” Feingold declared. “And, together, we can take our country back.”

There was a panel called “What to do When Your President isn’t All That into You.” Gay rights activist Dan Choi got into a emotional row with a OFA intern. Choi is demanding Obama back same sex marriage as a matter of justice and equality. The fireworks happened as the OFA guy was handing out pro-Obama GLBT flyers. Choi and the intern then got into it:

NICK TSCHIDA (Obama volunteer): I can’t say I’m for marriage equality, but as a bisexual man, I would take a bullet for both of you.
CHOI: You say you’re not for marriage equality?
TSCHIDA: I can’t, no as a….
[RIPPING SOUND]
CHOI: Did you not understand? Here! I believe that I’m an equal citizen.
TSCHIDA: I understand that, but Obama hasn’t gone officially on record for it…
CHOI: Then, don’t tell me that I’m a bad person, go tell him that he should believe in my full equality and then report back.
TSCHIDA: Civil unions?…
CHOI: “I think if Obama doesn’t endorse my full marriage equality and my personhood in this country, then I have no business supporting him and I don’t think a lot of the people who are first time votes will either,” Choi said…

And yes there is video:

John Avarosis and Jane Hamsher were on this panel. Avarosis backed Obama strongly in 2008 but since has seen Obama for what he is and has become a fierce critic. Hamsher of FDL fame also made strong comments:

John Aravosis, the other gay activist on stage Thursday, said that Obama has been “sucking up toward the gays recently” to raise money for the campaign.
“I honest to God thought I was voting for these guys, and that it was going to be the first time in my lifetime that I’m finally in a position of power where I could be working with the White House on a regular basis,” said Aravosis, the founder of AMERICAblog and a Democratic political consultant. “That happened through a very small window on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for a few months, but otherwise that’s not going to happen. They don’t want to strategize with us.”
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer is speaking at the confab Friday morning, and he’s expected to face tough scrutiny from a Netroots crowd that, for the most part, wants the president to be reelected but remains frustrated and somewhat disillusioned that he has not lived up to the promise of 2008.
“Elections are opportunities, and they’re opportunities to make elected officials who want your vote earn it,” said Jane Hamsher, the founder of firedoglake.com, during the Thursday panel. “So don’t give yourself away cheaply.”

Howard Dean was there and said he would not have gone into Libya without getting consent from Congress:

Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate who helped spark the Netroots Nation conference being held here, told TPM that he would not continue the war in Libya without congressional authorization the way President Obama has.
But he declined to criticize Obama over his choice to continue the fighting without asking Congress to weigh in.
“I would,” Dean said when asked if he’d request the congressional war authorization the White House decided not to this week.

Dean attacked Obama on many issues like the public option being scuttled, but he said he would work to re-elect him. Quite the message isn’t it?

One other dire harbinger ahead for Obama from the convention was on immigration. Obama faces key groups mobilizing against him in 2012 for failing to reform the system or twisting arms to pass the DREAM Act:

DREAM Act supporters are …targeting President Barack Obama in his 2012 run, arguing he is partially to blame for the failure of the bill. Immigrant advocates called on Obama in May to stop referencing his support for the DREAM Act in campaign literature, arguing it is disingenuous as he still allows undocumented young people to be deported.
At Netroots Nation… DREAM Act supporters said they plan to mobilize against Obama to show him he cannot take Latino and immigrant votes for granted in 2012 while continuing record-level deportations.
“Everybody is fighting for some method of accountability right now,” Juan Rodriquez of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said from the audience of a panel discussion at Netroots. “I’m not going to allow myself, my family and my community to be used.”

The convention runs the the 19th. You can watch all the panels and speeches live at their website. Also C-Span will be having the keynote speeches on their website and on their network this weekend.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Progressive Notes: Labor Tells Dem “We will Primary You,” and much more

By Art Pronin on 11 June 2011

Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Thanks to Rachel Maddow for hammering the hypocrisy of our puritanical pols in saying progressive Congressman Weiner resign. Unlike Ed Schultz, who has begged all week for Weiner to go, Maddow has hammered at the Right. She gets that having a progressive who can speak with passion on the issues is critical. She notes Weiner never campaigned on being high and mighty like many in the GOP do all the time. But leave it to the puritans of DC to try and dictate this man’s career. Cantor, Foley (yes), Huckabee, Tim Kaine have no shame. Here is Maddow’s must see bit on our DC puritans:

Trumka took it a step further against both parties at the National Nurses Union conference this week. This was one hell of a speech, and even had a four letter word in it about corporate Dems:

“For too long, we’ve been left after Election Day holding a canceled check, waving it about—‘Remember us? Remember us? Remember us?’—asking someone to pay a little attention to us,” recalled Trumka, who like many union leaders was frustrated with the failure of the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and other needed labor law reforms. “Well, I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a snootful of that shit!”
There was no way to misread Trumka’s message for Democrats who have strayed on issues …
“When it comes to politics, we’re looking for real champions of working women and men. And I have a message for some of our “friends.” It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside—the outcome is the same either way,” he explained. “If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be—now, in 2012 and beyond.”

Single Payer champion Margaret Flowers, among others, are organizing mass protests in Washington DC October 6th against the austerity mania sweeping the political elite and the war machine. Here is part of her stirring message and plan:

… We have witnessed the Arab Spring and the blossoming of the European Summer. We ask ourselves if now we will experience the American Autumn.
People in America see that corporate power controls the political process and the media. The Forces of Greed steal our treasure and squander it on militarism and needless wars for empire. Forces of Greed render our White House, Congress and Supreme Court dysfunctional so that the denizens of these bodies regurgitate what their corporate paymasters feed them.
Our country faces crises on every front: the economy, education, jobs, the environment, health care, housing, the wealth divide, an empire stretched too thin and ready to shred. None of these crises has to exist. Just and sustainable solutions are available and known. What stands in the way of all these solutions is concentrated corporate power.
The normal tools of democracy no longer work.
October 6 is the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion, and the beginning of the new federal budget year—an austerity budget for everything except for war and the corporate security state. On this day, we are calling for sustained and nonviolent mass resistance in Washington, D.C. The action, Stop the Machine! Create a New World!, portends an American Tahrir Square at Freedom Plaza between the White House and Congress, a block away from the National Press Club and a few blocks from the Chamber of Commerce and K Street, the stomping ground of corporate lobbyists.
An impressive array of people have already signed on. Among them: Ann Wright, …Chris Hedges, Cornel West, .. Glen Ford, Jane Hamsher, Jodie Evans, Leah Bolger, Medea Benjamin, Mike Ferner, Larry Pinkney, Rabbi Michael Lerner, …
We know however, that it is not leaders who make change, but people united who insist on change that will succeed!

If interested in this new progressive organization go here.

In the same vein the Guardian’s Peter Wilby may have one very good idea for why we have not yet seen massive civil unrest from the vanishing middle and working classes:

One reason why the working classes so often disappointed the left was that, having little daily contact with the rich and little knowledge of how they lived, they simply didn’t think about inequality much, or regard the wealthy as direct competitors for resources. As the sociologist Garry Runciman observed: “Envy is a difficult emotion to sustain across a broad social distance.” Nearly 50 years ago he found manual workers were less likely than non-manual workers to think other people were “noticeably better off.” Even now most Britons underestimate the rewards of bankers and executives. Top pay has reached such levels that, rather like interstellar distances, what the figures mean is hard to grasp.
But the gap between the richest 1% or 2% and everybody else in the top 20% or 30% is now so great and growing so rapidly that, one might reasonably think, it should change the terms of political trade. The income distance may be huge but the social distance is not. Those in the top 2% and the next 28% have often been to the same schools and universities. More important, they compete for scarce resources: places in fee-charging schools, houses in the best areas, high-end personal services. The super-rich have provoked raging inflation in the prices of these goods. Many of the not-so-rich were born into the professional classes and high expectations. Now, to their surprise, they find themselves struggling. In income distribution, their interests are closer to those of the mass of the population than to people they once saw as their peers.
They are not, however, imminently likely to join a crusade for equality. This generation of the middle classes has internalized the values of individualist aspiration, as zealously propagated by Tony Blair as by Margaret Thatcher. It does not look to the application of social justice to improve its lot. It expects to rely on its own efforts to get ahead and, crucially, to maintain its position.

Reagan, Thatcher and the Right have brainwashed a generation that we do not need social justice per say. Nope we can solve our problems if we simply work harder. But we are approaching a breaking point here.

Labor makes a primary threat on Dem Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD). He is not up for re-election until 2014, but he currently chairs the Banking Cmte. And he is a corporate hack who is flirting with undoing provisions of FinReg. So AFL-CIO has told him if he screws with Wall St. reform he will be primaried.

Arianna Huffington’s piece slamming Obama on his mishandling of the economy has gained much attention since she supported him so in 2008. There is a growing cry from the Left for Obama to change course on jobs and Arianna gives a must read:

..the White House embraced the GOP message that the deficit is a bigger problem than jobs, kneecapping its ability to push for additional ways of stimulating the economy. And now the president and his team wanly claim there’s not much they can do. But what they don’t mention is how complicit they were in creating the conditions that have left them with not much to do. They gave away all the ammo and now plead helplessness because of… a lack of ammo.
The conventional wisdom is that “there is no appetite in Congress” for additional stimulus measures. But, in fact, members of Congress have an appetite for whatever their constituents have an appetite for. And for months, the American people have been hearing the president agree with the GOP that the deficit is the biggest problem in the country. Had the White House told the truth — that the lack of jobs and anemic economic growth are far greater threats to the country — people would be a lot more open to job creation proposals.
Instead the president, even on the heels of the latest round of depressing numbers, is oddly passive. “This economy took a big hit,” he said Friday. “It is just like if you had a bad illness, if you got hit by a truck, it’s going to take a while for you to mend.”
Being hit by a truck is not a bad metaphor — but he left something out. If you get hit by a truck, you are taken to a hospital for major interventions. When you are wheeled through the emergency room doors on a gurney, people react; they move purposefully and quickly; machines are brought out; desperate measures are taken. But that’s not at all what happened with the economy. Instead, the economy got hit by a truck, was wheeled into the ER, and those in charge largely left the patient to heal on his own while they went into a back room to talk about the long-term building plan for the hospital. And, every now and again, they come out to tell the patient: “Remember, you were hit by a truck. It’s going to take a while to mend.”
You know what might help speed along the mending? Surgery.

Many are worried about the WH cutting a deal on Medicaid spending with the GOP. 41 Senate Democrats wrote to Obama and told him they will block any cute deals altering the Medicaid program. Sen. Rockefeller, from W.V., is pushing against any deals on the program and his state, one of the poorest, cannot afford such bargains.

Early this week the Obama WH said Senate Democrats shouldn’t persue job creation programs because it would cost too much. You that correctly. Ah but Senate Dems have their own ideas and met with progressive economist Jared Bernstein on crafting a jobs package.

Liberals and even some conservadems are rallying around the need for stimulus. One way might be a infrastructure package funded by closure of offshore tax breaks. The Hill reports:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, endorsed Harkin’s argument for more infrastructure spending, and said it is gaining support in the broader caucus.
“There’s very broad support,” Rockefeller said. “There’s no other way to get at this problem.”
Rockefeller said a spending package was discussed at several meetings Wednesday and that there’s a recognition Democrats need to be tougher in negotiations with Republicans.
“We have to be much more aggressive about all this, because as soon as they say ‘We’re not going to do that,’ as they’ve been saying for so long about so many things, you just kind of say ‘oh.’ We’ve got to stop saying ‘oh,’ ” he said, referring to the hard line Republicans have taken for Medicare cuts and against tax increases.
Even centrists like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) say a major infrastructure package funded by tax revenue-generating measures is what’s needed to strengthen the economy….

Bernstein told the Dems in the Senate that they:

…should not shy away from spending money to energize the economy.
“There are some things you can do without spending money, but that’s obviously a very tough constraint and not one that politicians should accept,” he said.
Bernstein, who met with the Democratic Caucus Thursday, said it would be ambitious to hope that more infrastructure spending could reduce unemployment by 2 points, but nevertheless said it’s a smart idea.

Even if it passed the Senate, the GOP House would kill it since it makes sense and would improve lives. But Dems should push it especially if there is a grand budget deal.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

« Previous 1 … 4 5 6 Next »

TAYLOR MUST READS

Lanny Davis Joins Booker and other Democrats Slamming Obama Bain Ads Against Romney
The attacks on Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker (D) by the more vitriolic liberal commentators for what he said about [...]
It’s Not News that Romney Can Win
MITT ROMNEY’S LUCKY the Republican primaries unmasked his warts long before anyone started paying attention. Sure America saw the clown [...]
The Choice for Romney is Liz Cheney
Why not the best for President Obama and the Democratic party? And how much more will victory be worth having [...]
Oh Donna, How We Danced
DONNA SUMMER was writing “Love to Love You Baby”; I was Miss Missouri. “Last Dance” came out in 1978, the [...]
Edward Klein’s Jeremiah Wright Interview Goes Wide with Swift-boating Proposal, and Sean Hannity’s Help
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in [...]
Trayvon Martin Knuckle Injury: Small Abrasion, 1/4 Inch in Size
DEFENSE HACKS led by “Just One Minute” made a lot of noise on Wednesday, writing Trayvon Martin “showed bloody knuckles,” [...]
Romney’s Bill Clinton Swipe Followed by Whopper Rove Ad
MITT ROMNEY IS betting that tweaking Pres. Obama on Bill Clinton in Iowa will land, while just making stuff up. [...]
Hillary’s Vogue
“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if [...]
Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation
“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been [...]
Obama’s Composite Girlfriend Creates Rip van Winkle Awakening
The success of “Dreams” has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has [...]
Ann Romney’s Style
IT’S FABULOUS and she can afford it. When I saw it on CBS “This Morning,” I knew it would catch [...]
Arrogant Amnesia: Obama Gets OBL, Republicans Stuck with ‘Mission Accomplished’ Cod Piece Photo Op
AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA in the Situation Room with Brian Williams on the bin Laden raid has exploded. Sen. [...]
Gritty GIRLS Takes Over
“You could not pay me enough to be 24 again.” – female doctor giving Hannah a pelvic exam Inspired genius. [...]
Beyond Timothy Leary and Valley of the Dolls: Psychedelic Drugs and Healing in the 21st Century
“Rick Doblin has done a lot for the field, but he is more of a populist,” Grob says. “We need [...]
Shrill for the Women’s Vote: Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen Go to War
My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance last night on CNN’s AC360, where I said that I thought [...]
For Zocalo Public Square: When My Butt Kicked Me, by Taylor Marsh
A Former Dancer Learns to Work Out Again After a Puzzling Injury Beyond politics. A very different type of piece [...]
Erick Erickson Gets the ‘Joe Scarborough Award’
As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social [...]
Mad Men Megan Draper’s Black Pantie Moment
“You’re too old. I don’t need an old person.” – Megan Draper, “Mad Men” Megan Draper’s cutting “old person” line [...]
The Hill: Women are the Real Game Changers, by Taylor Marsh
I wrote a piece for The Hill yesterday. Here’s a snippet: HBO’s “Game Change,” adapted from the blockbuster book by [...]
America is a Woman
**updated** The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing [...]
Joe Scarborough’s Weird DM Rant Invades My Weekend
*updated below* So much for keep calm and carry on, what Joe Scarborough proclaims to be his motto. It was [...]
The Weekend Pres. Obama Gave Women Their Own Social Security
But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much [...]
Joe Scarborough Compares Obama Contraceptive Mandate to Federal Govt. Mandating Southern Baptist Female Deacons
“… I think women should be deacons as well as men. …But if the federal government, if the Justice Department [...]
Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context
The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health [...]
U.S. News & World Report: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt
The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
UK Guardian Interview for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
The Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]

TM Connect

Progressive Notes: Al Gore Calls on Us, New Progressive Alliance, Van Os Urges His Party to Wake Up, and Other Doings

Progressive Notes: Thought Congress was Nuts? Meet the Super Congress.

Progressive Notes: Stop Saying “Entitlements,” POTUS’ Other Cuts, Gang of 80 and Other Happenings

Progressive Notes: FDR’s Grandson Wonders “Where are Leaders?”

Progressive Notes: Sanders Lays into “Deal” , Vows to Fight on the Floor

Progressive Notes: Will Party Loyalty Kill the Party?

Queer Talk: Obama endorses the Respect for Marriage Act

Queer Talk: Queerdom in the 2012 O-ligarchy

Progressive Notes: Quit Playing with My Life.

Queer Talk: Marriage According to those who have it Right

Dems Push Against Voter I.D. Laws

Queer Talk: ‘Human Rights’ (Hillary), ‘States’ Rights’ (Obama)

Progressive Notes: Congress is a “Gutless Body,” DREAMers Press Obama, and Other Goings On..

Queer Talk: Why is this man smiling? UPDATED

UPDATED Queer Talk: The Political is Very Personal

Netroots Nation 2011 Shows Progressives’ Anger UPDATED

Progressive Notes: Labor Tells Dem “We will Primary You,” and much more

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TAYLOR MUST READS

New Media