TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

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

Tag Archives | politics of sex

Sarah Palin, the $12 Million Dollar Woman

By on 13 April 2010

Since leaving office at the end of July 2009, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has brought in at least 100 times her old salary – a haul now estimated at more than $12 million — through television and book deals and a heavy schedule of speaking appearances worth five and six figures. – Sarah Palin Has Earned an Estimated $12 Million Since July (With A Steady Stream of Six-Figure Speaking Gigs, The Former Alaska Governor’s Haul May Be Even Bigger)

Buffalo Springfield is playing in my head.

There is something happening here…

What it is isn’t exactly clear.

But from all appearances and poll numbers, what it isn’t is the making of a presidential candidate. At least not yet. Palin couldn’t even seduce Sen. Scott Brown into joining her at her Massachusetts Tea Party rally.

However, quitting pays. And since Sarah Palin is the main breadwinner of her family, no doubt it has come in handy.

Between Glenn Beck’s $32 million, and Sarah Palin’s $12 million, which is money since July 2009 and doesn’t include the $1 million an episode she’ll get for her Alaska travelogue for TLC, it’s clear that something is happening on the right, which can be monetized in a very big way.

The question I put to everyone last week, which caused quite a stir when I put it up on Huffington Post remains. Never mind that people wanted to dumb down what I was asking to “The left doesn’t want a Sarah Palin, because she’s stupid.” Expanding the question further, I ask it again, who on the left can effect the voting public like Beck and Palin, while cashing in on it at the same time?

The energy and big bucks remain on the right.

With Tina Fey’s sign off the only thing that’s really clear… So, there you have it. All Palin all the time until 2012, when I haven’t decided what I’m gonna do, but I’m probably going to run for president.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

SCOTUS is Political, Appoint a Politician

By on 12 April 2010

Mr. Sessions would not comment on the qualifications of the possible nominees whose names have been in circulation, but another Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, said on “This Week” on ABC that Judge Garland, Ms. Kagan, Ms. Napolitano and Judge Wood were “all nominally qualified.” Mr. Kyl would not say if he could support them. – Democrat Predicts Speedy Court Confirmation. Republicans Sound Note of Caution.

Prepare for the opening salvo on Is the Obamacare mandate constitutional? Could anything be more political at this point? With attorneys general filing suit, it’s doubtful. We should all hope they get heard and win. The government forcing citizens to buy a commercial product on pain of withholding IRS refunds is undemocratic.

The Supreme Court of the United States is a political institution at this point in our history. So, we need a politician to replace Justice Stevens. What we don’t need is a justice who is so wedded to Obama and the executive branch that we get more top down governance, especially on domestic security issues, like we’ve gotten from Bush-Cheney, but also Obama-Biden.

Since Judge Rehnquist stacked the three-judge panel whose jurisdiction is independent counsel investigations, which eventually helped coax Bill Clinton’s impeachment along, the Supreme Court has been political. Once the Supreme Court made the God-awful decision to insert themselves by accepting Bush v. Gore, what Rehnquist had done covertly now pronounce SCOTUS as openly political.

I’ve been reading a bit about the potential nominees. Solicitor General Elena Kagan seems to be the conventional wisdom frontrunner. The Wall Street Journal helps out the opposition by offering a scewed view of Ms. Kagan.

The pro-selective life crowd is apoplectic. Kagan’s record under Clinton strong for insisting that access to reproductive health clinics not be denied and people protected. Kagan’s support for legal procedures like abortion also being targeted, even though the American people want abortion to remain legal, which has been the case for decades.

Ms. Kagan’s nomination is troubling for other reasons, though she is clearly a brilliant woman. After her tenure in the Clinton administration, her aiding executive branch overreach is historical. Glenn Greenwald pointed me to a 2009 article from Eric Lichtblau that confirmed my queasiness on this front.

There was no daylight between Ms. Kagan, who was the dean of Harvard Law School, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, as he led her through a six-minute colloquy about the president’s broad authority to detain enemy combatants. “Do you believe we’re at war?” the senator asked. “I do, senator,” she answered crisply.

Indeed, there was so much adulation in the air from Republicans that one Democrat, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, joked at the hearing that she understood how Ms. Kagan “managed to get a standing ovation” from the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a former Michigan Attorney General, but also a governor of an economically challenged state who knows the struggles of ordinary people, would be a terrific pick, though she’s a long shot, for sure. The Republicans would tear her apart on qualifications, regardless of her intelligence and communication skills.

As much as a politician is needed in the court, especially considering how adept Judge Stevens was in handling tight votes and the ability to convince others to come his way, Mr. Obama isn’t exactly courageous on these types of decisions that might look political.

To pretend the court is not a political machine at this point in our history is foolish. However, what the American people and the Congress do not need is another Supreme Court Justice who will side with the executive branch over we the people, which Ms. Kagan is very likely to do. So, regardless of her strong women’s rights stance, as well as her belief that DADT was wrongly decided, her executive branch favoritism would shift the court’s balance to the right for decades.

It’s likely why she’s Obama’s frontrunner.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

THE MASTERS: Of Heel, and Heart

By on 12 April 2010

“Competitive golf is played mainly on a five-and-a-half-inch course, the space between your ears.” – Bobby Jones

The underlying story for The Masters was a symbol. Not the ego drunk sports hot shot. But a simple pink ribbon on Phil Mickelson’s cap. It foreshadowed the fairy tale ending, as well as the human trauma amidst the drama playing out in one golfing family that made a man’s purpose behind winning something larger than self.

Mickelson’s wife, Amy, has battled breast cancer for nearly a year, and she did not feel strong enough to come watch the tournament in person all week. But after Mickelson sank his final putt to clench his third Master’s jacket, his wife was there waiting for him. With a cheering crowd in the background, Mickelson embraced his wife for 27 seconds before a short kiss. “I really want to recognize my family,” Mickelson said after the win. “My wife, we have been through a lot this year and it really means a lot to share this joy together.” – Tiger Woods Overshadowed by Phil Mickelson in Masters Finale

The gods had a plan; though after an errant piece of nature landed on the green as Mickelson took his back stroke putt for a possible birdie he sorely needed, you wondered if that was a sign. For Fred Couples, it just wasn’t meant to be. But it was great to see the golfer I’d followed around Riviera playing so easily, so well for most of The Masters, close to contention until the back nine at Augusta, where many a great golfer meets their match on the final day of play.

You knew it was about to open up when Phil “the lefty” Michelson, hitting off a wood chip lie, threaded the 6-iron in between two trees, hitting a championship shot of a lifetime, taking a chance to open it up or take himself out, because it was now or never to make a move.

Then there was Tiger. If you want context for where he fit, all you had to do was listen to the interview he gave after his final back nine. When asked about his emotional state, the golfing great simply said, “I think people are making way too much a big deal of this thing.” Of course, that was after he simply stated in response about how the tournament ended, “I came in fourth.”

Tiger didn’t mention the graciousness of the fans, the crowds, and the embrace of Augusta that cloaked his humiliating disgrace in forgiveness. For Mr. Woods, it all seemed simply to be something he expected.

But if anyone was surprised about Mr. Woods’ cold, calculated and controlled emotional reaction to playing The Masters after his ego gratifying sex spectacle was revealed, all you have to do is go back to 2000. Tiger Woods didn’t go to honor Jackie Robinson after Woods won The Masters. When the fine golfer Payne Stewart was killed when his plane crashed, and golfers all honored his passing, Tiger simply skipped that memorial, because he had to concentrate on his performance. So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that his customary lack of grace and humanity revealed itself yet again yesterday.

Beyond the sordid saga of Tiger Woods and his sorry self-indulgence, there was another story playing out that was a rare moment for the heart of The Masters to shine through. Phil Mickelson’s wife Amy had been diagnosed with breast cancer last year; then just weeks later so was his mother. Amy has not been able to travel, the treatment so intense, with Michelson’s golf game put second for much of the last year, as the reports go. In fact, it wasn’t even assured that Mrs. Mickelson would be at the 18th hole to see her husband finish; resting in bed all day, because the trip from California was so grueling considering the treatment she’s still undergoing, though she is reportedly doing well now, even as the fight for a healthy life goes on.

However, after Phil Mickelson sunk the birdie putt at 18, walking up to mark his score, the beautiful blonde stood with their children to meet her husband’s embrace after he’d won a Herculean victory, not only on the golf course, but with his wife to see her standing there waiting with a smile and a kiss after a year that rendered such simple acts of love so precious that even golf now takes second place to the love of a spouse, family and normal life. Tears rolled.

The heart of the Mickelsons touched everyone watching the victor take his trophy. Not even the sterling silver replica, not even the green jacket, though beloved, could compete. It was the satisfaction of feeling the triumph over an evil illness, if just for this sweet moment, because in standing by his wife and putting himself and his sport second, somehow his heart, joined with The Lefty’s talent, made winning all the more sweet, because he did it for her. For all they’d struggled to pass through, for one instant it all fell away, and the meaning of team, partnership, and reward was laid at the feet of the fighting Mickelsons.

Meanwhile, Tiger said he’s going to take “a little time off” before coming back out to play. No one can take the greatness out of this golfer. However, as a human being he’s got a lot to learn. Though watching him at the close of The Masters yesterday, I’m not certain he ever will.

Read full story · Comments { 75 }

Do Women Have to Talk Like Men to be Taken Seriously on National Security?

By on 11 April 2010

“If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.” – Sect. Hillary Clinton

Call her Obama’s pit bull.

Sitting next to her good friend and colleague SecDef Gates on “Face the Nation,” Sect. Clinton said what I wrote the other day after Pres. Obama announced his new nuclear policy. That “all options are on the table” at all times when it comes to U.S. national security, regardless of who is president. It’s just unfortunate she was the one who had to imply it by channeling male lingo. We get Pres. Obama creating 21st century strategic nuclear policy using 21st language, while his female secretary of state is left to rattle sabers to send messages to America, but particularly to the right, that the Obama administration isn’t soft on national security. Considering Obama is targeting an American for assassination, going one step further than Bush-Cheney, it’s astounding that the Administration feels the need to go on the defensive at all.

However, that’s where we are, which was proven recently in a Democratic poll showing that since George W. Bush left office, the security gap is back.

On national security, the poll found that 50 percent of likely voters prefer Republicans, while only 33 percent prefer Democrats. It’s the return of a “security gap” that all but vanished in 2008 because of Obama’s popularity and Bush’s mishandling of Iraq, Bennett said.

It’s Sect. Clinton’s job to defend Pres. Obama’s policies, but it’s easy to see how she got into trouble on Iraq, as her language remains moored in 20th century shaping. It’s one reason why Obama likely picked her for State, along with her world grasp of issues. But beyond her voice on women’s issues, Clinton’s language doesn’t do much for placing women beyond the 20th century macho military machine mumbo jumbo. The impression Clinton leaves behind using this “all bets are off” bravado is that women don’t own their own language, or can’t use it if they do, or they’d be considered soft.

After all, even though Pres. Obama is more like Bush-Cheney on security issues, at home and abroad, he’s got a security gap when compared to Republicans. We expect men to defend their positions using bellicose language. However, Pres. Obama is progressing forward by re-invigorating nuclear zero and putting it as a priority.

Perception is reality in politics, so get out there and rattle those sabers, Sect. Clinton, rattle them.

Even the smartest woman we have on the international scene won’t shake the 20th century language of war. As if talking about nuclear zero, plus the beefing up of conventional weaponry and other technology, isn’t enough to show toughness, without resorting to the macho, cringe-worthy swagger of “all bets are off.”

Clinton’s language is close to a defensive response to Liz Cheney speaking at the SRLC:

Cheney told the roughly 3,500 conservative activists and donors gathered for the conference that there are three prongs to the president’s foreign policy: “apologize for America, abandon our allies and appease our enemies.” “The Obama administration is putting us on the path to decline,” added Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Both women, though on opposite sides and of widely different stature, seeing who can one man up the men or at least perpetuate their talking points more effectively.

Segue to Sarah, who responded to Obama questioning her nu-cular, as Mrs. Palin pronounces it, acumen, saying “all that vast nuclear nucular expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president.”
Palin went on to say that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything regarding North Korea or Iran.

“In foreign policy now we’ve got the makings of the Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.” – Sarah Palin

To Sarah and Liz, diplomacy is “coddling,” while expecting Israel to stop settlements that are causing trouble on peace “alienating allies.” Mrs. Palin even going so far as to say settlements in Israel were just “a zoning issue.”

We have come to expect women on the right to channel Margaret Thatcher, because they don’t have a prayer with their base if their language isn’t strapped on.

There is, however, no longer any excuse for Sect. Clinton, as she has no base to keep, her political years now behind her. But still we get the unimaginative machismo of “all bets are off.” It’s discouraging as much as it is lazy.

As for our current challenges with Pres. Karzai, as I predicted, Liz Cheney made brothers of Mr. Karzai and Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Afghan President Karzai, whose support we need if we are going to succeed in Afghanistan, is being treated to an especially dangerous and juvenile display from this White House. They dress him down publicly almost daily and refuse to even say that he is an ally. There is a saying in the Arab world: “It is more dangerous to be America’s friend than to be her enemy.” In the age of Obama, that is proving true.

So, we’ve got Sect. Clinton talking about “all bets are off,” while Obama invokes nuclear zero and a progressive 21st century nuclear policy. Liz Cheney accusing Obama of “appeasement.” While Sarah Palin criticizes Pres. Obama’s reaching out as “coddling.”

Pres. Obama gets to sound progressive and forward thinking, while the women remain stuck in 20th century war rumbling.

Pres. Obama talking softly as Sect. Clinton wields the big stick may be a good mix and useful for the Administration, but Clinton’s willing acquiescence perpetuates the stereotype of a supposedly serious national security spokesperson that can only be represented through swaggering male lingo.

If Hillary, Liz and Sarah are any representation, and they’re the leading women on the scene right now, even understanding that Hillary Rodham Clinton is out of politics for good. What we’re headed for in the future is a woman acting like a man as president. But women can’t simply mimic men, talk like them, manufacture machismo in order to effect change on national security and diplomacy, and hope to win the presidency and make the first female president matter by leading differently than her male counterpart might.

So, if we get a Liz or Sarah, what’s the big deal about having the first female president some day? That goes double because the left has no anti-Sarah/Liz. At this rate, the way these three talk on national security, I’d say it would be a wash.

Unless you think that looks are all that matter.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Obama Takes On Palin – Sarah Responds at SRLC

By on 09 April 2010

“In foreign policy now we’ve got the makings of the Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.” – Sarah Palin

He just couldn’t help himself.

George Stephanopoulos knew he’d bite.

Never mind she doesn’t hold an official title.

She isn’t running for office.

She isn’t even in Barack Obama’s playing field.

Yet Sarah Palin has provoked the White House yet again, which made for good material during her Southern Republican Leadership Council speech that just concluded, with Randy Scheunemann at his best.

“The president, with all the vast nuclear experience as a community organizer.” – Sarah Palin

Palin took on critics saying, “Don’t retreat – reload, and that’s not a call for violence.” Sarah Palin was also the first Republican to mention Katrina, so she obviously got my memo (and my morning tweet). After “drill, baby, drill, not stall, baby, stall,” from the crowd, a lone voice chanted… “Run, Sarah, run.”

Pres. Obama, fresh from signing a historic treaty with Russia on reducing nuclear weaponry, gets asked about Palin’s attack, drawn out by the press to take on Palin, which provided Sarah with the final word today.

Reuters immediately picked up the Obama v. Palin story that started rolling yesterday:

Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has not been shy about criticizing Obama’s policies and this week weighed in on his revamped nuclear strategy, saying it was like a child in a playground who says ‘punch me in the face, I’m not going to retaliate.’

“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Pressed further on Republican criticism that his strategy restricts the use of nuclear weapons too much, Obama added:

“What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.”

In fact, even after Obama’s initial comment, Stephanopolous goes back for more by invoking other Republicans beyond Palin who have said his new nuclear policy is wrong. Pres. Obama responds, then goes out of his way to take a direct shot across Palin’s bow, while acting a bit miffed that he’s having to talk about her. (You’re the President, you don’t have to, sir.)

He should have stopped with “I really have no response to that.” But his ego wouldn’t let him. So, he goes on, refusing to leave it at the advice of his SecDef and Joint Chiefs being enough. The bit about taking “advice from them and not from Sarah Palin” an unnecessary acknowledgment that her opinion means anything in the rarefied realm of the presidency.

Mr. Obama needs better impulse control.

Besides, he should be punching up, never down, as you only elevate the person you give your focus, which clearly offered her an even bigger opportunity today.

There is just something about Mrs. Palin that makes Democrats take her bait, including the President of the United States, and the press just eats it up, and so does Sarah.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Bart Stupak to Retire

By on 09 April 2010

–updated–

Good riddance.

Poor Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama, the two who helped make Bart a hero. I bet Mr. Obama is doubly glad he went through the political contortions of proffering and signing an executive order against women’s rights for a guy who bailed on him when he found out he was going to be challenged, not only by a strong woman, Connie Saltonstall, but Tea Party activists, too. (They’re claiming victory, by the way.)

But before you assume Connie Saltonstall will be the automatic Democratic nominee, as Marc Ambinder also writes, this is not at all certain at this point, with rumors swirling that the DCCC may choose someone else for the seat.

Mike Allen gives us a preview, mentioning Saltonstall, but gives the real chances to others:

Democrats who could hold the seat include state senator Jim Barcia (a former congressman), Mike Prusi and Gary McDowell, and state representatives Joel Sheltrown and Jeff Mayes.

As for the Tea Party candidate, Allen also reports that Dan Benishek is expected to raise around $100,000 this quarter, even though he had no infrastructure before Stupak’s national media rise.

One person to watch out for is State Rep. Judy Nerat, who is a close Stupak ally. She, like Mr. Stupak, is pro-selective life. Notice that SwingStateProject purposefully omits Ms. Saltonstall, declaring her “too liberal” for the district. That’s where Democrats put women’s rights today, considering them is “too liberal.”

Okay then, if Democrats cannot field a strong women’s rights candidate in a district, we shouldn’t try to win it. Otherwise, whatever 50-state strategy we’ve got will continue a rightward lean for Democrats, turning the Congress even more against us than they are today. If Republicans get in, with right-leaning Democrats in office, no telling what they could do against women.

There is a real effort to make the Stupak seat about the Tea Party discontent, as well as their selective life stance, which puts women’s human rights second. What is missing in the national narrative is the real rage on the left over the rightward tilt under Pres. Obama, with Speaker Pelosi’s help, aided by the utter fecklessness of the progressives and “pro-choice caucus,” which includes carving women’s rights away via health care legislation that is anti-democratic.

I have no idea what it will take for traditional media to understand what’s happening among a serious slice of women inside the Democratic tent, who are revolted by Obama’s executive order, and Speaker Pelosi’s kowtowing to Mr. Stupak in the first place, which was made possible by the lack of purpose of the progressive caucus.

Women’s freedoms are not a bargaining chip. Obama and the Democratic Party’s willingness to sell us out, with even Planned Parenthood joining in, has already made Independents out of some people, with others simply demoralized enough about Obama’s domestic tilt rightward to consider not voting at all.

Interestingly, the issue of women’s rights didn’t stop the Democratic Party from out fundraising Republicans $13 million to their $11 million. I, for one, wasn’t shocked, as women’s rights are becoming marginalized under Pres. Obama and Pelosi’s House. Granted, the Medicaid funding in the health care plan is good, but considering Democrats put together an anti-democratic bill that eventually hits the middle class hard, women too, while taking choice away from everyone through an onerous mandate, I’d say anyone with any libertarian notions is on their own.

But at least Bart Stupak is getting ready to hit the road. Who the Democrats choose to take his place matters, though whether he or she can win in a conservative Catholic district is another matter. But since Stupak was voting against women’s rights it hardly matters, now does it.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Where’s the Left’s Sarah Palin?

By on 08 April 2010

–cross-posted at Huffington Post–

There remains a “Hillary hole,” with women wanting their turn, while people hunger for something radically different, which is currently being filled by the Tea Party, a star named Sarah and her fans. Not surprisingly, as poll after poll on her rolls out, the narrative on Sarah Palin continues to be filled out unfairly. I know, you’re shocked. But love her or hate her, whether she runs in 2012 or not, when you look at the left, the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.

The latest poll from CBS on Palin comes with an interesting graphic. Unfortunately, the headline blows the lede and the main data point. The news for Palin isn’t as bad as the CBS headline screams: “Low Favorability Ratings for Sarah Palin.” Do the math.



Just Republicans: 43% approve of her; 16% have an unfavorable opinion; with 29% undecided and 27% haven’t heard enough about her.

In overall opinion, beyond Republicans: 24% favorable; 38% unfavorable; 20% undecided; 17% haven’t heard enough about her.

As for Independents: 25% favorable; 35% unfavorable; 20% undecided; 18% haven’t heard enough.

Then look at the gender numbers. Sarah Palin’s charisma holds a key for why middle-aged right-wing males are on her side. As for women, 40% have an unfavorable opinion of her. But guess what; just as many women “haven’t heard enough” about her, coming in at 39%.

Translation: Sarah Palin has challenges if she’s thinking about 2012, no doubt; but there are plenty of opportunities to change minds her way, according to the CBS poll. Question remains whether she can given her style, the substance of her rhetoric, as well as her delivery.

Lefties get infuriated when I parse the traditional and new media spin against Sarah Palin. I can hear the caterwauling already, but don’t care much about it, as I’m more interested in following the story, not the negative Hillaryesque stereotyping.

The truth is that the CBS poll offers some hope for Palin and her people, if the crowds and cash aren’t enough. For all the “she’s a wacko” storyline, there are a lot of people who remain undecided about Sarah, even as the traditional media continues to offer stereotypical “Low Favorability Ratings for Sarah Palin” headlines, even if the data screams a different and more important story.

Meanwhile, whether Sarah Palin runs in 2012 or not, she’s making money while running from state to state campaigning for Republicans and Tea Party people. She’s also keeping her maverick status intact by going against the insider GOPers by defending Michael Steele, which seems more stubbornly obstinate than smart. It should be noted that right now her approval among Republicans remains high enough to still make her a possible contender, something I’m sure Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are watching.

Mrs. Palin’s politics aren’t for me, and though I pine to see hot headliners from the left, instead we get the likes of Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama blue dog duds, with no women of any wattage in sight.

From a terrific piece on Huffington Post, there is also a larger Democratic problem, which is outlined in “Power Struggle: Inside The Battle For The Soul Of The Democratic Party”:

[...] Yet for all the real accomplishments, many liberals are celebrating less than they are commiserating about a lost opportunity, an opportunity for progressive change that pales in comparison to ’33 and ’34, ’64 and ’65, when Democratic majorities redirected the course of the nation. “It is only once in a generation that a people can be lifted above material things,” Woodrow Wilson said, perhaps optimistically. “That is why conservative government is in the saddle two-thirds of the time.” This generation reformed health care and built on that foundation, but the contemporary Democratic approach relies more on using government money to prop up private institutions, no matter how broken, instead of expanding the public sector. For instance, a public insurance plan — the “public option” — was part of the health reform discussion until it came threateningly close to becoming law, at which point it was discarded. [...]

Part of the ambivalence for Democrats turning independent is the rightward march of the Democratic party under Obama. However, that doesn’t mean these people won’t vote for Obama in 2012 given no other choice. However, the rightward tilt of Democrats, as well as their undemocratic governance on health care, has put the activism level on shrug, leaning towards uninvolved. There simply is no way there will be the enthusiasm for Obama that was seen in 2008. Whether you’re talking Missouri, Nevada or Virginia, Obama has likely already kissed these states goodbye, the Bush states he won in 2008 already trending away from him, with Pennsylvania turning negative for Pres. Obama in the latest Quinnipiac.

Looking beyond Obama, as much as I like and appreciate Joe Biden, he’s not exactly a 21st century candidate when you look to 2016. The possibility reminds me of a George H.W. Bush situation after Reagan had eight years. That’s assuming Barack Obama will rally Democratic enthusiasm, including young people and women, to hold the presidency in 2012.

Where is the woman on the left who can make headlines and draw crowds like Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, perhaps even a re-entry of Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

The “Hillary hole” is as wide and deep for Democrats as ever, with no Sarah Palin alternative anywhere in sight.

The heat is on the right.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

NEVADA: Notorious Gibbons Gets Life Against Obamacare, While Sandoval Aides Get Ensign Subpoenaes

By on 08 April 2010

The backdrop for this story is more calls for Sen. John Ensign to resign.


Ensign-Sandoval-Gibbons, Political Triplets

I’ve made no secret how terrific I believe Rory Reid would be for Nevada. I rarely cover state issues, but this video sent in by a longtime reader inspired me. I’ve met Rory, interviewed him, as well as met his beautiful wife. However, it’s not the best time to be a Reid, with Barack Obama definitely on the November ballot in Nevada. Rory is as sharp as they come and would make a huge difference in Nevada’s direction. That goes double when you compare the scandal-ridden Republicans, Gibbons and Sandoval, who are competing against him.

Another thing about Rory Reid is that he’s incredibly unassuming in an age of grandstanding, bombastic bomb throwers. He’s the work horse. His other challenge is he is a die hard Democratic loyalist at a time when all Democrats would be wise to find their inner libertarian independence (or channel mine), if only to survive. This goes double for Nevada, with the worst parts of Obama’s health care plan hurting Democrats, because it goes against the American spirit, which I wrote about the other day. I have no idea if campaigning on the “opt-out” Obamacare provision is practical or would work in Nevada, but given what Rory’s up against, a little distance from dad would make news and do him some good.

Gov. Gibbons was floundering against Brian Sandoval until he decided to go Tea Party and invoke health care. Gibbons is making a bit of a comeback lately by campaigning against the Democratic legislation just passed, including joining the AG lawsuit efforts. But Gibbons ran into a buzz saw, namely his own AG. The reasons for the AG refusal of the governor’s request are pure Gibbons. She’s too busy handling Gibbons’ revolving personal messes:

In rejecting a call by Gibbons to file a legal challenge over the federal health care law, (Attorney General Catherine Cortez) Masto cited time constraints as a factor, including spending time defending Gibbons on personal issues. One case involves a former administration employee who said she was improperly fired from her job in the budget office because Gibbons believed she leaked information about personal text messages sent from his state cell phone.

For those of you who don’t know Gibblons, he made headlines with his creepy garage grab a few years ago. His messy public divorce followed, with his wife accusing him of “infidelity and of using her to foster his political ambitions. …of having affairs with a Playboy model and the estranged wife of a Reno doctor.” Old man Gibbons went to court to keep his “love note” texts from being made public.

As for the governor’s primary opponent, the former Mrs. Gibbons just had Brian Sandoval on her radio show.

But it seems Sandoval is getting dragged into the Ensign affair. One of the people helping Sandoval’s election bid Pete Arnaut, was subpoenaed in the Ensign ethics probe.

A top R&R executive, Pete Ernaut, has been subpoenaed by the Ethics Committee as part of its investigation into Ensign’s extramarital affair with Cindy Hampton, his former campaign treasurer. John Lopez, Ensign’s former chief of staff, who now lobbies for R&R, has been subpoenaed by the Ethics Committee as well.

Another Sandoval big shot, Mike “Karl Rove” Slanker, is also in the headlines and has been subpoenaed by the Feds, as has his wife.

Federal investigators are seeking information on John Lopez, Ensign’s former chief of staff, as well as Mike and Lindsay Slanker…

So, you’ve got Gov. Gibbons, who’s a notorious womanizer and now a Tea Party hero who thinks denying Nevadans health care is a way to go. Then the other choice for Republicans is Brian Sandoval, who has surrounded himself with people being dragged into the Ensign scandal by subpoenas.

The Republicans of Nevada continue their march of shame. The only thing worse would be if one of them ended up governor.

Seriously, Nevadans deserve a lot better. My hubby’s kids and grand kids who live there sure do.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman Take Minnesota

By on 08 April 2010

Tim who?

“Do you love your freedom?” Sarah Palin began. “You who love your good hunting and fishing and… some of you proudly clinging to your guns and religion, like the rest of us.”

Call it the glamorization of the Republican femmes. What a makeover by Michele Bachman, who actually made Sarah Palin look like the librarian, something that is extraordinary given where Bachman began. It was a diva showdown that turned into a sister act, with both Tea Party superstars wowing the mostly female crowd. From Andy Barr of Politico:

Two of the conservative movement’s biggest stars, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), lavished praise on each other Wednesday at a boisterous rally held at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

Before a predominantly female crowd of more than 11,000 fans, the two high-profile Republicans ripped President Obama at an event that doubled as a fundraiser for Bachmann’s re-election campaign.

Are there two female politicians on the left that can raise the roof and produce this big a headline?

Whatever image Michele Bachman was shooting for prior to the Palinization of the right, which is depicted in this “before” look, and the rise of the Tea Party, she’s shrugged it off for something far more Hollywood, which you’ll see in the video below. The softer, longer hair; the trendy clothes; all of which render Ms. Bachman’s image more headliner and star act than simply part of the conservative punch line crowd.

Mike Madden weighed in on the women:

“Two years from now, President Obama will be a one-term president,” Bachmann continued. “Because we are going to elect the boldest, strongest, most courageous, rock-ribbed constitutional conservative president this country’s ever seen! We’re there!”

And then things got a little weird. “As absolutely drop-dead gorgeous as this woman is on the outside, I am here to testify she is 20 times more beautiful on the inside,” Bachmann said. Suddenly, the rally wasn’t just a fundraiser for Bachmann; it was a demonstration of the GOP’s strange version of feminist solidarity. Palin started out by thanking all the tea party groups for helping rebel against Obama’s reign. And the tea party leaders? “We’re finding out most of ‘em are women,” she said. “Yeah! Some surveys show that.”

Whatever people said about Sarah Palin’s decision to quit the governorship, it seems her plan to campaign for Republicans in 2010 and show her prowess is working, not only for her profile, but also for the people she’s helping. Sarah Palin is taking the lead these days, standing up for John McCain who’s in trouble in Arizona, and now sticking up for Michele Bachmann, one of the weirdest conservative politicians on the right, who actually makes Palin look mainstream.

Minnesota GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the opening act for the Palin-Bachmann show. But nobody remembered he’d been there once the GOP femme stars took the stage.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Newt to GOP: Leave Michael Alone

By on 06 April 2010

There’s nothing like the smell of Republican pandemonium in an election year, especially one that is looking up hill for Democrats. From bondage to Michael Steele blundering in his answer to George Stephanopoulos yesterday; when Steph repeated a question he’d received from someone on his blog that asked whether, as an African American chairman of the RNC, Mr. Steele had a “slimmer margin of error.” Steele replied emphatically “yes,” then went on to invoke Barack Obama, which brought a swift response from the White House.

“I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card, it’s the credit card.” – Robert Gibbs

Playing the race card falls flat for Steele, because no one has been given more opportunity to fix his screw ups than Mr. Steele. If this is an example of a “slimmer margin of error,” well, I want to know what it takes to fire someone. If Republicans don’t come close to taking the House we may well see.

The Republicans are eating up all the oxygen with loads of negative press, while Obama struts his non-proliferation commander in chief stuff, leaving the wingnut weenies to whine amongst themselves.

So, here comes Newt to the rescue:

Gingrich said Tuesday he thinks “it’s foolish for Republicans to focus on Michael Steele as a person and it’s better to focus on Democrats.” – AP

I guess Mr. Gingrich forgets the reason Mr. Steele is taking so much heat is that he’s rifled through a lot of money, with Republicans now underdogs in fundraising to Democrats, while his continued ineptitude is providing plenty of fodder that needs no laugh track.

Hotline On Call goes into a lot of minutia about the troubles of the RNC, but also Steele’s power base, finishing with the captivity issue, from bondage to Republicans bailing:

[...] What really burns GOPers is their captivity to the story. Just weeks after health care legislation passed Congress, Dems should be on the defensive, especially in a DC climate in which little news beyond Pres. Obama’s opening-day pitch at Nationals Park is happening. Instead, Steele and the RNC have dominated headlines and the DC media’s attention all week.

For a minority party, a successful electoral strategy is one that makes an election a referendum on the incumbent majority party. Despite a major shakeup at the party headquarters, GOP strategists are still waiting for evidence that the RNC can convince the media to stop talking about themselves and start talking about Dems.

It’s a long way until November, but the constant Michael Steele – RNC soap opera is a nice spring respite amidst a lot of rage that’s been trained on Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Karzai’s Contempt

By on 05 April 2010

Netanyahu has a political brother. Pres. Karzai doesn’t like tough love either. From the Washington Post:

[...] Karzai wanted Obama to publicly praise his plans for a “peace jirga,” the planned meeting of tribal elders and political leaders to discuss reconciliation with insurgents, said the senior Afghan official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. Karzai also wanted support for his views on how to reform the electoral law ahead of parliamentary elections in September.
ad_icon

What he got was Obama prodding him to perform. He pushed Karzai to keep two foreigners on an elections commission that investigates fraud; to appoint cabinet ministers based on merit rather than personal ties; and to fight corruption by giving more authority and independence to the corruption oversight agency, among other things. Karzai saw the visit less as a public show of partnership than the United States coming to scold an ineffectual leader, according to his supporters.

“Our most important ally is constantly criticizing us: ‘You’re corrupt. You need to do this and that,’ ” said Hekmat Karzai, director of the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies in Kabul, and a cousin of the president. “You cannot talk down to the Afghans like they’re children or they don’t understand.” …

Robert Gibbs, in a briefing late last week, said the White House was asking for clarification of Mr. Karzai’s show of contempt for the U.S. efforts in his country.

The article goes on to say Karzai called Sect. Clinton, reiterating his commitment to our “relationship,” but that didn’t stop him from wailing that he’d “join the Taliban” if confronted by “foreigners,” in an obvious show of independence for his countrymen.

One can only imagine the chills that went down Ms. Suraya Pakzad’s spine on hearing that cry. In March, Ms. Pakzad was trying mightily to make Americans listen to the urgency she feels in demanding the Karzai government allow women’s rights as human rights be considered in any reconciliation bid with the Taliban. Spencer Ackerman had a very good article, which included a back and forth with Pakzad, last month. (It was in the late 1990s, at the same time I met and briefly talked with Mavis Leno, that Taliban abuse of women came on my radar.)

Once again, mimicking when V.P. Biden was abruptly insulted with settlements in Israel, which created a reaction of recoil, some Karzai loyalists reportedly said people were overreacting to Pres. Karzai’s statements. The Obama administration hearing a lot of that lately.

Karzai’s call of the nationalist made him do it, right? Don’t be fooled by the carefully chosen, very convenient political cover.

Pres. Obama is no doubt hearing Joe Biden in his ear whispering a soft and low, I told you so.

UPDATE: There has been a story swirling, which now gets clarified further with the U.S. now admitting to the killing of Afghan women during a Special Ops raid. Not exactly how you win hearts and minds, something Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has been working day and night to accomplish. Talk about bad press…

After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid. [...]

… On Monday, a senior NATO official denied that there was any effort to tamper with evidence.

“We have discovered no evidence in our investigation that any of our forces did anything to manipulate the evidence at the scene or the bodies,” said the deputy chief of staff for communications for General McChrystal, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Connecting

By on 04 April 2010

“… While this may come as a surprise, Jesus wasn’t a Christian, Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist, and Mohammed wasn’t a Muslim. These were Divine spiritual beings who came here as emissaries of truth . . . yet when their truths were organized we saw the horrors of inquisitions, mass murders, crusades, holey wars, and jihads, all in the name of “God.” [...] No one else can intervene for us in our efforts to commune with our Source of Being: We shouldn’t rely on organizations, gurus, rituals, temples, or any other outside sources as the means to make conscious contact with God. …” – Dr. Wayne Dyer (from “Inspiration,” pgs. 209-210)

On this Easter Sunday it’s astounding for the Catholic church to once again be mired in a child abuse scandal, though this one is clearly not like any other. Pope Benedict, once Cardinal Ratzinger, is involved, and now the Pope’s own priest likens the criticism as “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” The Vatican walked it back quickly, but it gives you an idea of the PR pandemonium taking place under Pope Benedict, who has been disgraced by his involvement in the cover-up of crimes so heinous that any humble person would be rendered prostrate.

Adding insult to moral cowardice, the National Catholic Register has sought fit to opine “Re-Elect Pope Benedict” for their next installment, proving that those making excuses for Pope Benedict and the Catholic church hierarchy are too out of touch to be redeemed. Pope Benedict should not be re-elected, he should resign; at the very least ask for forgiveness and beg mercy from his flock.

On the most holy of days for Christians, where does that leave Catholics? See Wayne Dyer above, whose words should be taken to heart by everyone of faith or having a spiritual dimension that is important to their lives.

As an Episcopalian, I so appreciate the ritual and tradition of my church, but also find great solace in daily meditation that requires no intermediary; the church a gateway to finding further depths of faith that lie beyond. The favorite Episcopal churches of mine, though I so enjoyed Easter and other services at the National Cathedral, are All Saints in Beverly Hills, and a small church in Columbia, Mo., both of which have female priests in charge, proving how wrongly misogynistic many religious organizations continue to be, which no congregation in the 21st century should condone.

There would be no way I could support any religious organization that was so irresponsibly derelict in their duties to their people as the Catholic church has been. But then I’m firmly committed to supporting only those religious institutions that honor women, something the Catholic church does not do, though it is not alone.

Men have no higher holy mandate than women, with the continued support and obedience of women in congregations that require our subservience only proving worthy of our forfeited support. Women alone can’t change the church, whatever denomination that denies our leadership, but we can move it forward forcefully with the help of good men who will join us, though it will likely take a generation and maybe more.

In the absence of equality, women can choose other than the church.

The truth is that there is no conduit, no church needed to connect to what’s beyond that which can be proven. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, and refuse the guilt that immoral manipulators use to draw you near.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

CNN Exhumes Puma for Tea Party Story

By on 03 April 2010

Shannon Travis, a “CNN Political Producer,” has done a story with the headline: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party. It reads, in part:

They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he’s a “phenomenal speaker.” Another who said she was a “knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal.”

These two women are not alone.

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party — a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it’s not formally aligned with the Republican Party. [...]

As I’ve written, there are many, many disgruntled Democrats and Independents, but they are not joining the Tea Party in any numbers. Trying to concoct a story that says otherwise through a silly and hyperbolic headline and an interview with a couple of people strains credulity. Remarkably, inside the article itself it says that only 4% of Tea Party members are Democrats, the rest Republicans, though I even find that number high. What about Independents?

Which brings me to another issue, wondering when traditional media and others are going to give full voice to Independents? This is especially important since their numbers are growing faster than both Dems and Republicans.

And by the way, even those people who are infuriated, including dozens who have emailed me, none have said they wish they’d voted for McCain-Palin. So, the one person in the CNN piece who said she “regrets voting for Barack Obama,” well, she’s in a class all her own; one that rekindles the unhinged fringe brand from 2008.

UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. Soon after I wrote this post a response was posted on my Facebook page. Puma didn’t die, they’re “morphing.”

“we never passed away, we’re just morphing. some to tea party’s, some waiting for the democrats to be the party they once were, some independent until further notice.” – Amy Michelle Petunia

Read full story · Comments { 121 }

Easter Weekend Free For All: People are Pissed Off Edition

By on 02 April 2010
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c
2 Girls 1 GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Reform


Any topic goes, from politics to food to just fun and games. The floor is yours.

I’m looking forward to a huge indulgence: chocolate. Gelato or candies, that’s the conundrum. I can almost taste it now.

As backdrop you have Pres. Obama calling out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, with Byron York reaching out to the PT Barnum of wingnut radio to get his reaction.

I asked Limbaugh what he thought about the president’s comments. [...] “I have yet to have a down year at the EIB Network,” Limbaugh responds. “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country.”

The “worried about the country’s direction” meme is picked up by the Washington Post.

In the late-March poll, the “angry” population overlapped generally with those who identified as Republicans. They were overwhelming white (94 percent) and conservative (73 percent).

Many of those who listed themselves as “angry” said they felt Congress was operating in a vacuum, removed from the problems encountered by average people struggling against a tepid job market, sagging home values and dwindling retirement funds. About 85 percent strongly disapproved of the way Congress is doing its job.

Much of the language echoed that of the vocal, conservative “tea party” movement, as well as conservative talk radio and blogs. [...]

There certainly is a lot of anger out there and as far as I can surmise it’s justified. It also could build into a voting tsunami come November.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Why Does Anyone Support Planned Parenthood?

By on 02 April 2010

“I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years,” Clinton told reporters. “And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” – Sect. Hillary Rodham Clinton (via Politico)

At a time when women’s rights are being bargained away by Democrats in health care language, she sits and shrugs; all of this happening with the backdrop of Dr. Tiller’s murderer being sentenced to life in prison. You’d think Cecile Richards would sense the urgency of where women stand right now. However, Ms. Richards is as clueless as Planned Parenthood is rudderless.

If I hadn’t seen this with my own eyes I wouldn’t have believed it. When Cecile Richards said “this is a ‘pro-choice’ country, Chuck Todd stumbled over himself interrupting and challenging her saying “what do you base that on?” Meanwhile, Savannah Guthrie sits there like a potted plant. What is it about the NBC network family that refuses to acknowledge the realities of women’s rights in the U.S., while muting the female anchor, and choosing the man for a Planned Parenthood interview on abortion rights? Russert rarely had a woman on “Meet the Press” to discuss abortion, with this type of interview casting stereotypical of this network.

However, that isn’t the worst of this interview.

The only thing I can say about Ms. Richards is that she sure as hell isn’t her mother. It’s a cruel comparison, but the times today are deadly serious, with Cecile Richards simply not up to the job. We need someone with fire, passion and purpose who isn’t afraid of ruffling feathers.

Where women stand today through the Nelson language in health care was stated most clearly through Guttmacher Institute (which I linked to recently). Ms. Richards is evidently ignorant of the facts, either that or she just doesn’t care.

Abortion: Insurance Coverage Now an Endangered Species

The bill’s restrictive abortion provision is putatively designed to uphold the status quo on the question of federal funding. Accordingly, federal funds—in this case, subsidy dollars for individuals purchasing insurance plans on the new health care “exchanges” that are slated to become operational in 2014—may not be used to pay for abortion coverage (except in extreme cases), but individuals, at least in theory, may purchase a plan that includes abortion coverage so long as the abortion coverage itself is paid for with their own money. (This mirrors the Hyde Amendment, under which federal Medicaid dollars may not be used to pay for most abortions, but states may cover the procedure for their Medicaid recipients using their own funds.)

In practice, however, the complex, politicized arrangements the legislation necessitates militate heavily against the likelihood that many such plans will be purchased—or even offered. Consumers purchasing exchange plans that include abortion coverage would have to make two separate premium payments—one to cover abortion services and one to cover everything else. Insurance companies would have to jump through numerous, unprecedented hoops to estimate the cost of abortion coverage and ensure that the abortion payments never mix with other funds; they also are likely to face extensive public scrutiny and protest around their action. All told, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, “the more logical response” for private insurers marketing plans within the exchanges—and eventually in the broader market as well—“would be not to sell products that cover abortion services.”

Ms. Richards is under the delusion that her group’s mere presence at this point in women’s history justifies their existence and excuses their incompetence.

There are a lot of so called “women’s rights groups” out there, with money scarce. I don’t think Planned Parenthood has earned their keep, so I don’t know why anyone would give them money over Emily’s List. NOW and NARAL got played on health care too, but at least they had the passion of purpose to denounce the outcome, including Obama’s Stupak pandering executive order.

After the health care battle, Ms. Richards was simply satisfied that Stupak language wasn’t inserted in the health care bill. She was clearly ambivalent about the Nelson language, nonchalant even, another mid-life menopausal matron unmoved by the carving away of women’s rights.

That’s because Planned Parenthood lives and breathes because of Democrats. They don’t stand up for women, they live to raise money to keep their organization alive. After Ms. Richards’ bumbling on health care I honestly think we could do without them.

Cecile Richards certainly isn’t doing the job needed on behalf of women’s rights. Her performance on MSNBC simply a fundraiser booking. Her goal obviously to look “moderate” and sensible, you know, not too passionate to scare people off, at a time when their fundraising is about to kick in for 2010.

But Ms. Richards has proven she will sell women out in order to keep her donor base growing and the Democratic elite happy, though I’m sure her party card is filled, which after all is what counts to these people.

Ann Richards wasn’t afraid to offend, because she had the courage of her convictions. That’s the type of female leader women so desperately need today.

Unfortunately (fortunately for Obama and the U.S.), she’s currently Secretary of State.

Read full story · Comments { 167 }

SMUT ALERT: Conservatives Against the 1st Amendment

By on 01 April 2010

cross-posted at Huffington Post

First it was a bondage club, now we’ve got NRO publishing a sad story about voyeurism and porn. It should come with a warning label for ignorance and stupidity, especially considering the associated institute that NRO is publicizing. There’s a reason religious conservatives are continually the ones in the news where sex is concerned and it’s not because of the demon porn.

Beware of “institutes” hawking warnings that have solutions attached that hint at carving away freedoms. There’s always something deeper afoot. Take the latest Witherspoon Institute findings on “The Social Costs of Pornography” that is “signed by more than 50 scholars,” which National Review Online is pushing. Before slurping up their political propaganda it’s important to review other writings the Witherspoon Institute has sponsored, including “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles.” Number 8 reads: “A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.” It goes on (emphasis added):

We call upon our nation’s leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution, including:

1. Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.
2. Investigate divorce law reforms.
3. End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
4. Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
5. Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.

Got agenda?

It’s always the same thing coming from the same people.

But it’s spring, so it’s time for conservatives to target our libidinous notions, but also the gazillion dollar entertainment industry now tapped by Fortune 500 companies everywhere. This season it comes through a common tale of woe, though no matter how many letters I have read over the years the learning curve continues to be circa 1900 where marriage and sex, relationships and reality in the modern era are concerned. From “Anonymous” in NRO:

Imagine a drug so powerful it can destroy a family simply by distorting a man’s perception of his wife. Picture an addiction so lethal it has the potential to render an entire generation incapable of forming lasting marriages and so widespread that it produces more annual revenue — $97 billion worldwide in 2006 — than all of the leading technology companies combined. Consider a narcotic so insidious that it evades serious scientific study and legislative action for decades, thriving instead under the ever-expanding banner of the First Amendment.

According to an online statistics firm, an estimated 40 million people use this drug on a regular basis. It doesn’t come in pill form. It can’t be smoked, injected, or snorted. And yet neurological data suggest its effects on the brain are strikingly similar to those of synthetic drugs. [...]

I can only imagine Kathryn Jean Lopez’s NRO email inbox.

As regular readers are aware, back in the 1990s, I became an expert on dating, marriage and relationships after spending a lot of time traversing the world of personal ads, but also the adult entertainment world. That is a long time ago, but some things never change. I’ll put my expertise up against any “scholar” on this subject any day, especially when filed under an institute that has a conservative agenda.

It’s not that I scoff at the impact of porn, as I know about it intimately, having heard from thousands of people about it. It’s that when I hear what “Anonymous” wrote in NRO, all sorts of warning bells go off. For instance this:

Recently he began to reject my sexual advances outright, claiming he just didn’t “feel love” for me like he used to, and lamenting that he thought of me “more as the mother of our children” than as a sexual partner.

Alert the marriage counselors! Seriously? This is as timeless a marriage cry as there is in human history. Have these people never heard of Freud? Are they ignorant to the Madonna-Whore complex? Good grief.

“Anonymous” whines on:

Then one morning around 2am he called, intoxicated, from his office to announce that he had “developed feelings” for someone new. The woman he became involved with was an unemployed alcoholic with all the physical qualities of a porn star — bleached blond hair, heavy makeup, provocative clothing, and large breasts. After the revelation, my husband tried to break off his relationship with this woman. But his remorse was short-lived.

A man seduced by provocative clothing on someone other than his wife, and large breasts? Who knew?! This is groundbreaking stuff NRO is sharing.

After all these years I still get letters from people, many women, on this subject. Recently I got one from a woman I’ll call “Julie.” She is recently engaged, but also found out that her fiance has a porn fetish. Therapy, etc., but she was asking whether she should postpone the wedding. The answer is far simpler: walk away. This isn’t a symptom of coming problems, this is an alarm bell of an impending disaster.

This type of thinking is what prodded me to do a radio show and write on the subject “It’s all the woman’s fault” (essays here and here).

In her email, “Julie” revealed an obvious worry that had her thinking about postponing the wedding. Her instincts were screaming at her, but her head refused to listen. She knows what to do but isn’t doing it. Ego kicked in, the excuse being “love,” to cause her to do nothing, though she was smart enough to email me. (Let’s hope she’s reading today.)

There are all sorts of signs of what could possibly cause a man to devour porn or act out sexually. Take Tiger Woods. A military father he adored, a Buddhist mother, but a life filled with strict discipline, athletic rigors and continual rigidity in all things. Man gets married, because that’s what you are supposed to do. Bound up in expectations and strictures since youth, but also obviously not ready to commit to one woman, which is a simple diagnosis not complicated to deduce, it’s not shocking that the outcome of acting out would be so extreme, given everyone is invested in Tigermania, a man who also inhabits a white glove sport.

Check out Ted Haggard, Sen. David Vitter, Sen. John Ensign, as well as the statistics that continue to show that conservatives and the religious are the biggest consumers of pornography.

Consider the Catholic Church, which forbids marriage of priests, ignoring the physical body that the soul inhabits. The denial of the Vatican to respect the body thus becoming ensnared in the physical reality of humanness is at the hub of the Church’s problem

The body will not be denied.

On the other side, too often women are reluctant to deal with sexuality and the reality that the most sedately “normal” male isn’t always what he appears to be. Women becoming girlfriends and wives often ignore the nurturing, love and care required of the animal inside herself, which is particularly true when kids come into the picture. It has become more challenging as we live longer lives.

But pornography isn’t the problem. It’s the excuse for why things go south.

The 1st amendment protects this speech. Men have a choice. Women do too.

Beware conservatives touting the dangers threatening marriage, or women wailing that porn robbed them of their man. Sometimes you marry the wrong person. Sometimes a cad is just a cad. Set him free. The forbidden once realized often loses its luster, and you’ll be done with someone who didn’t deserve you in the first place. Just quit kidding yourself.

Women have choices, including staying invested in their own sexual lives, which requires a partner who desires you. If he doesn’t it’s not the porn.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

NPR Shifts Abortion Language to Neutral

By on 01 April 2010

File this in the category of under the radar and it’s about time.

I’ve been saying for, well, forever, that the so called “pro-life” contingent is only pro-selective life. Many of these same people are against stem cell research, for the death penalty, but also in favor of putting a woman second and a slave to her own body, while some want her not to have control over it.

The graphic below appeared in Newsweek online and was utilized by a young, right-wing group online whose sole purpose is dedicated to stripping women of their right to self-determination. Michelle Malkin trumpeted them recently when she covered NPR’s shift in abortion language.

I’m not aware of any young and aggressive progressive group fighting to maintain women’s rights.

But finally, after decades of having won our freedoms, a move by some in the media to neutral and more even rhetorical ground.



Last week, NPR replaced the wrongly applied “pro-life,” with the term “abortion rights opponents.” Via NPR:

“NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.

This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”. …

This editorial decision gets it exactly correct. A woman considering her own life when making the agonizing decision of getting an abortion is choosing life as much as anyone is. Her own.

Until we get beyond debating that a woman has the fundamental right of freedom over her own body, which should never be denied or debated, let alone served up as a bargaining chip as Democrats did on health care, we’ll never get down to serious prevention. That’s where all sides should engage together. But it can’t happen until everyone realizes that women’s self-determination is not up for grabs or discussion.

Someday someone somewhere will wake up to understand that this will require the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which was put forth as a reaction to Roe v. Wade, but is out of date and out of line with freedoms already won and court decisions already rendered. Ability to pay should have nothing to do with reproductive freedom.

A woman’s individual liberty comes first. All that’s left to discuss is prevention. That’s where we need to focus.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Serious Sarah on Iran Versus Puff Palin on Personalities

By on 31 March 2010

Sarah Palin’s latest Facebook entry on Iran is simply not up to her standards. That people are not reviewing it as such reveals a double standard no woman should welcome.

Having taken the national stage by storm, recovering from a near career-ending 2008 vice presidential candidacy, fleeing the governor’s office to take advantage of the opening and exploit her breadwinner role, while drawing crowds that no other politician could, including this past weekend in Searchlight, NV, Palin’s take on Iran is being linked, paraphrased, but not dissected for what it is.

Having been fair to Mrs. Palin, but also because she’s earned respect for simply defying every political odds maker around; as I’ve said innumerable times, Sarah Palin isn’t someone to take lightly, even though she is someone the left continually refers to as “stupid.” She’s anything but stupid.

Her Katie Couric catastrophe has been replaced by a defiant heads on strategy to turn into every criticism and challenge her critics without flinching. However, the sad truth is that Palin’s latest Facebook entry on Iran is nothing short of incomprehensible.

This is a meaningful week for so many of us. As millions of Christians and Jews celebrate this Holy Week, it’s appropriate to reflect on developments in the Holy Land. Israel faces a nuclear threat from Iran that grows every day.

And Israel would face the gravest threat since its creation. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the mullahs would be in a position to launch a Second Holocaust.

[...] Iran continues to develop long range missiles. Its missiles can reach Israel and Europe right now and in time they will be able to reach US territory.

This issue is the most serious security challenge facing the U.S. in the region. Yet just as the Obama administration inexplicably gives up on imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, it’s taken an uncompromising hard line against one country in the Middle East: Israel. On his recent visit to Washington, the Israeli Prime Minister was treated like an unwelcome guest, as shown by White House actions such as refusing to be photographed with Israel’s Prime Minister. …

That anyone vying for the national stage or wanting to be taken seriously on it would hint in an open forum that the U.S. needs to worry that “in time (Iran missiles) will be able to reach US territory” proves how thin a layer Palin’s foreign policy thinking is at this point. It’s also a preposterous notion to even float that Iran would consider training their missiles on the U.S. No respected foreign policy adviser would suggest such a stance.

Then consider the Palin hyperbole, “Second Holocaust.” It preposterously assumes and ignores that Israel is no longer a ostracized state in a world of enemies, but a formidable democratic nation with strong world allies who would come to her aid in a heart beat if any such calamity was even close to bearing down on the people of Israel. Never again is an emphatic pledge people of the world consider a bond with Israel, which will never be broken; certainly not because some wacko Iranian mini me of a man wails it will be so. Palin also focuses on the photo op snub, putting Israel before the United States in her rhetoric, which is something the right does often. Sarah Palin ignores that it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who set the whole back and forth in motion by embarrassing this country and Vice President Joe Biden on Israeli soil when he came calling. There is no greater friend to Israel than Joe Biden, but evidently because he’s a Democrat Palin and her friends believe what Netanyahu did deserves a pass.

Sarah Palin also takes a swipe at Sect. Clinton’s AIPAC speech, making note that “recently the administration downgraded their call for ‘crippling’ sanctions to sanctions that ‘bite.’” It was Hillary who invoked the “bite” description for new sanctions being considered against Iran. Leaving alone Palin’s “in a week when events in the Holy Land thousands of years ago are on the minds of millions,” once again we get from the right a lot of bluster, but no constructive idea of just how we are going to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, because it’s a matter of when not if; though whether they will be able to deliver it is another issue. Of course, Palin never addresses Israel’s nuclear capabilities, because this isn’t how the right thinks or doesn’t.

Sarah Palin also would be wise to make up her mind. Sure, Edward R. Murrow was reduced to doing celebrity interviews, something he hated. But I’m not sure Mrs. Palin is vying for the Murrow slot on Fox. If she’s working on hoarding cash, between her Fox News channel hostess gig and selling Alaska on TLC for $1 an episode, I’d say she’s on her way. More power to her, as it seems pretty clear she’s the primary breadwinner in the Palin household, turning on its head any notion that there isn’t a real modern reality at base camp Palin, which would make any woman jealous to think of their husband helping as much as Todd seems to do. However, as she juggles personality interviews and travelogues on Alaska, why anyone should take her seriously on Iran with this as the backdrop is a real question for the renegade Tea Party leader.

This latest Facebook entry from Sarah Palin is simply not up to any standard that she should be brandishing on Facebook, though it does give credence to why Puff Palin, her celebrity alter ego, will be seen interviewing celebrities on Fox News tomorrow night, along with debuting a travelogue as Alaska’s number one ambassador.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }

Japanese ‘RapeLay’: Corner Women, Rape Them for Fun

By on 30 March 2010

It’s only a game, right?

Via CNN world:

The game begins with a teenage girl on a subway platform. She notices you are looking at her and asks, “Can I help you with something?”

That is when you, the player, can choose your method of assault.

With the click of your mouse, you can grope her and lift her skirt. Then you can follow her aboard the train, assaulting her sister and her mother.

As you continue to play, “friends” join in and in a series of graphic, interactive scenes, you can corner the women, rape them again and again.

The game allows you to even impregnate a girl and urge her to have an abortion. The reason behind your assault, explains the game, is that the teenage girl has accused you of molesting her on the train. The motive is revenge. [...]

None of this is new.

But the devaluing of women, especially promoting violence against them through games, is something that should be discussed and debated out loud.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Health Care, Earmarks, Kids, and Pre-existing Price Hikes

By on 30 March 2010

“Any objective observer looking at this bill would say this is a middle-of-the-road, centrist approach to providing coverage to people and also to reducing cost,” Mr. Obama said. “I am frustrated that Republicans who had an opportunity to help shape this bill declined that opportunity.” – President Obama, on the “Today” show

Important to note that Pres. Obama thinks further codifying Hyde, as well as coddling the minority, is “middle-of-the-road” to today’s Democrats. No one should be surprised.

No legislator would ever condition his or her vote on earmarks. Not ever, right?

The Appropriations Committee deadline for requests was reportedly March 22nd. The rest is up for interpretation. So, Fox News is the only media outfit reporting this? Here’s their report:

The Sunlight Foundation says it plans to track the earmark requests, which were put in one day after health care reform cleared Congress, to see whether they’re approved and whether it appears lawmakers are being rewarded for their vote. [...]

The individual earmarks requests from each of those lawmakers range from $20 million to $1.4 billion. Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money than they did a year ago. Stupak requested $579 million.

Here are the earmark amounts requested by the 11 House Democrats in the 2011 bill:
Rep. Jerry Costello of Illinois.: $1,418.7 million ($256.4 million in 2010)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz of Texas: $618 million ($726.1 million in 2010)
Stupak of Michigan: $578.9 million
Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio: $332.2 million
Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio: $294 million ($305.7 million in 2010)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania: $236.8 million ($54 million in 2010)
Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota.: $207 million ($226 million in 2010)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana.: $115.4 million ($82.3 million in 2010)
Rep. Charles Wilson of Ohio: $84 million ($62.3 million in 2010)
Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.: $67.1 million
Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana: $19.8 million ($11.65 million in 2010)

There has also been a dust up over the sick children coverage loophole in the health care legislation.

[...] To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear. Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.” …

Kathleen Sebelius sent AHIP a letter saying the Administration would send out new guidelines so that they could comply by September. However, the reality is very clear, as I’ve talked about before. Having access to health care doesn’t mean the insurance will be affordable, which AHIP’s response hinted in their response. Via the Wall Street Journal:

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law’s mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

This is the first hint and salvo on pricing of the expanded coverage. Many more people will have access to health care, but that doesn’t mean they can afford it.

Democrats now have to go out and sell it. You’d think that wouldn’t be necessary after all of this time, but allowing the message to be hijacked last August, with Sarah Palin’s “death panels” the strongest salvo, continues to be costly.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }