religion | TaylorMarsh.com

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

Tag Archives | religion

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

By Taylor Marsh on 08 February 2012

On the Diane Rehm show today, according to my husband who sometimes listens to NPR while he’s driving from order to order, a man called in. They were discussing the Administration’s decision on contraceptive coverage. The gist of what the man asked, as I got it from Mark, is that the man said he got a vasectomy from a Catholic hospital, so why can’t women get contraception? The lawyer on with Ms. Rehm was a bit startled, then said, he shouldn’t have.

I’ll stack my religious faith and spirituality up against anyone on the right, because that’s what this comes down to, right? That’s the battle on which the religious conservatives want to fight. It’s unseemly, because it thrives on division and distracts from the actual purpose of Pres. Obama’s policy decision. Dividing secular public policy meant to aid women, particularly those in the challenged means category, and helping them to be more autonomous and capable of planning their lives, which begins with pregnancy.

As with anything connected to women’s freedoms, religious conservatives, no matter the political party, have chose to attach a political cost to helping women maintain more freedom. Already, David Axelrod has telegraphed the White House will compromise. This is where Democrats and Republicans become one large political party, both willing to use women’s autonomy as a chess piece on their political play board. It’s why my vote is up for grabs in the upcoming 2012 elections.

The connection to something greater, however it’s defined, has guided me throughout my life. This is part of what I talk about in my book, which appears in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” That my book has never been more timely when it comes to that chapter and the current discussion is enriching.

Below is the text of an email sent out by Catholics for Choice. It lays out some of the President’s faith allies, of which I am one.

Major Mainstream Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage In Health Care Reform

February 8, 2012, Washington, DC – Today, twenty major mainstream religious leaders released a statement supporting the January 20, 2012 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptive services must be covered by most insurance policies without deductibles or co-pays, and that only purely sectarian organizations are exemptfrom this requirement.

Catholics for Choice; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; Concerned Clergy for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Divinity School; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish Women International;
Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; the National Council of Jewish Women; Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Religious Coalition to Reproductive Choice; the Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union Theological Seminary; Unitarian Universalist Association; and United Church of Christ represent millions of religious leaders
and people of faith across the country.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:

“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions.

We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”

Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women’s Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonniveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Women Want Their Birth Control

By Taylor Marsh on 07 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
There are major religious, generational and political divisions:

Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.

Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

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

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

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

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

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

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.
Bridgette Dunlap organized an off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors to provide prescriptions for birth control because Fordham University’s student health service does not do so.
As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions . Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely.

Title has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Al Sharpton Schools Morning Joe

By Taylor Marsh on 07 February 2012

The Catholic League, according to CBS, is “poised to go to war with Obama over mandatory birth control payments.” A better stenographer the Catholic League could not have than CBS, with the threat meant to put a political scare into Obama. But this isn’t 1980 and the Catholic League is facing a new generation in a new century where the vast majority of women rely on birth control, regardless of faith, with the economy of birth control very real. If you can’t afford $600/month, you play Russian roulette with your life and your future.

From Marjorie Clifton of GoVote over at Huffington Post:

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 79.5% of people aged 18 to 24 have had sexual intercourse, and, of those, 2.2% become pregnant. While Catholic authorities would say that unmarried young adults should not be sexually active to begin with, this position ignores reality and serves only to isolate young people — dismissing the issue as someone else’s problem.
But Catholic students are no different from the broader population. In 2009, the Boston College Undergraduate Government held a vote on whether the university should offer more sexual health services, including STI testing, condoms, and prescription birth control. The vote saw a record turnout, and an overwhelming 89% of students supported making these services available. The truth is in these numbers.

Al Sharpton won the round yesterday morning in a walk, which also revealed the tired arguments of the elite media, though they represent, as CBS did parroting exactly what the Catholic League wanted, conventional wisdom of a certain set. But the culture war today is about how modern women, who aren’t marrying like generations before, control their lives, their fate and plan their future. It cannot be done without birth control.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Al Sharpton’s smackdown of the out of touch hosts begins at around 2:30 in the video above, but what’s particularly revealing is the reading of a Peggy Noonan op-ed by Ms. Brzezinski.

“It’s a fight the President can’t win. President Obama just might have lost the election,” opines Peggy Noonan, complete with tired “sleeping giant” awakening cries.

That is religious conservatism on parade, not to be confused with political conservatism, as I wrote about yesterday, by none other than Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter. Noonan represents that moment in time where religious intrusion into the modern political fabric began its crescendo after the era of individual freedom broke out in the 1960s.

The bookend to Noonan is E.J. Dionne representing religious conservatism on the Democratic Party side of things. Part of that group is also Sen. Casey, someone willing to continue the tradition of making a woman’s body subject to government intervention, whether state or federal.

What’s been the problem with women’s autonomy and economic issues like birth control, is Democratic Party leaders have continually ceded ground to religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans, because they were afraid to fight on the terms that impact women. Birth control is an economic issue, as can be abortion. But make no mistake about it, when religious conservatives in both parties talk about birth control, they see abortion.

Women, especially poor women, have been made to take a rumble seat on the side car of our national discussion on individual freedoms, because the discussion is forever wound up in abortion rights. Any woman in the throes of such a personal crisis, which I talk about personally in my book through the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?”, is thinking about one life she’s trying to save and that’s her own.

Sebelius in USA Today:

Of the 28 states that currently require contraception to be covered by insurance, eight have no religious exemption at all. [...] It’s important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control. And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections. – Secy. Kathleen Sebelius

It’s the most important conversation on women’s health to be launched in recent memory and if the American people are made to engage in it in a substantive way, which remains to be seen, something fundamentally will have been done by Pres. Obama’s decision on contraceptive coverage.

Joe Scarborough and others have said or suggested Pres. Obama’s will backtrack on his decision.

It will be catastrophic for American women and send a dangerous message on privacy if he proves them right. Because this isn’t just about contraception to religious conservatives. It’s about Griswold and the idea that women should enjoy the same privacy and freedoms as men, which no state or federal law or agency, religious institution or employer should have the right to abridge.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By Taylor Marsh on 02 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?

By Taylor Marsh on 30 January 2012

The answer is simple. Because no Republican or Democratic politician has the courage to challenge any church today. E.J. Dionne reveals why:

That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.
His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.
… Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

What Mr. Dionne reveals is that “Catholic allies” are more important than the integrity of protecting the individual person against the institution. The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly.

Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” an argument Russ Douthat makes today in the New York Times, what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions.

Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men.

One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives.

This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette… – Business Insider

I’m a rebel Episcopalian that now relies on daily meditation as my spiritual bedrock. I won’t take a back seat to any fundamentalist or evangelical or Catholic on spirituality. However, any person’s preferences in private should have no sway in public policy matters.

Since the Catholic Church is clearly encouraging it’s parishioners to wage a political campaign against this decision there should be substantive questions raised as to why this religious organization deserves protected status under the IRS code.

From Catholic News in November 2011:

“The law says that organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes charities and churches, may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.
That means no endorsements, checklists, guides promoting one candidate over another or sample ballots by tax-exempt parishes and organizations or their publications.
But it does not prevent religious leaders or members of other tax-exempt organizations from speaking out on the issues, organizing voter registration drives or nonpartisan educational forums or publishing candidates’ responses to a questionnaire as long as the questions cover a broad range of issues and do not reflect any bias.

As you’ll see from the letter below, provided by Business Insider, there is nothing nonpartisan about it.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This article has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Chris Christie: ‘Gingrich has embarrassed the party…’

By Taylor Marsh on 22 January 2012

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mitt Romney needed a strong interview with Chris Wallace today and he got one. Romney communicated easily for the first time in a while, seemed relaxed, but also forthcoming on mistakes made, including that letting his tax returns distract his campaign. So, he announced on Fox he’ll be releasing his 2010 on his website Tuesday, as well as an outline of his 2011 returns. Romney will never be warm and fuzzy, but when confronted on his religion and tithing and other personal issues, he acquitted himself well today.

Mark, my husband and a recovering Mormon, had one big beef with Romney when it came to his answer on tithing. In the Mormon Church, every year you have to declare to the bishop whether you’re giving a full 10%. Romney could have said that he gave 10% to his church long before he had his own money. He could have opened up and stated the verse in the Old Testament and shown some heart at the core of his faith. Since he needs to win over more conservatives, it’s the move to make.

This is the biggest issue in Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Not the Mormonism, but the inability to allow conservatives to see what makes the man who he is. With Newt unloading to the point of too much information on every subject in the universe, Romney comes off even more inaccessible, which will be deadly going forward.

Meanwhile, Romney surrogate Chris Christie played offense on Meet the Press for Mitt Romney, making the best case for him, showing the attribute Romney doesn’t, which is being able to connect and talk straight in a way that would be a real attribute on Romney’s team, including as vice president. Christie was on fire today.

Gov. Christie said aloud what a lot of people are whispering behind Gingrich’s back:

“I think Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time,” he said. “Whether he’ll do it again in the future, I don’t know. But Gov. Romney never has. … We all know the record. He was run out of the speakership by his own party. He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy who has had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party. You remember these times, you were here. …I don’t need to regale the country with that entire list again except to say this: I’m not saying he will do it again in the future, but sometimes past is prologue.”

Mitt Romney’s down, but he’s far from being out. He knows he’s got a real fight in Florida, which he needs to win. Between Romney and Christie, it’s clear they’re coming for Newt Gingrich in a whole new way. The issue of character is now going to be up front.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Our Womb is Finally Equal (at least for now)

By Taylor Marsh on 20 January 2012

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday. The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013. – The Hill

Viagra has been covered in health care policies for years. Now, the Obama administration has instructed the Department of Health and Human Services that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employers health care plan. An exception will be made for religious zealots, represented by Rick Santorum and the anti birth control contingent on the religious right, which lives in both political parties.

Pres. Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not a great bill, so don’t get me started. However, there are really important parts of it worth praising. What the right likes to call Obamacare covers preventive health services for free for women, with the definition of what that means a step by step process. The announcement today on contraceptive coverage is one of those steps.

As a reminder, here’s part of what was announced in August 2011:

Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:

well-woman visits;
screening for gestational diabetes;
human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
domestic violence screening and counseling.

I’m all for applauding this action, but as a liberal, I find the notion of universal birth control a public health issue, for which there should be no religious exception for institutions. That should be a personal choice issue, not an institutional one. I also believe that universal health care is a right, not a privilege. Unfortunately, if you’re poor it’s the latter.

For the bots ready to blow, this isn’t about Pres. Obama, because any Democratic president would be offering this very thing, with the religious exception, because that’s what the big two parties are all about, the larger public and good of the poor always secondary. So, excuse me if I find any applause as silly as cheering for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which is the bare minimum women of all political parties should expect from our politicians in the second decade of the 21st century.

But for some reason women in this country are always satisfied with less, putting political allegiances above issues of equality that should bring all women together. Partisanship separates us from accomplishing the biggest goals, which include bringing poor women into the fold, which can only happen through universal health care.

To drive home the point of just how backward our country remains, read Sarah Posner on the challenges already moving against the Obama administration’s sanity:

UPDATE: The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which, as I reported in my long religious freedom piece, represents both a Catholic college and an evangelical university in challenging the rule, has issued a statement (tellingly calling the rule an “abortion drug mandate”) claiming that the rule will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. As other observers have noted, opponents of the contraception mandate have claimed that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor, which recognized a “ministerial exception” that prevents churches from being by “ministerial” employees under federal employment discrimination laws. The Beckett Fund makes this argument in its statement, but legal observers have noted the narrow holding in that case. The opponents of the Obama administration decision like the Beckett Fund does in its statement, will attempt to make the Hosanna-Tabor into a broad statement against government interference in church affairs in an attempt to bolster their claims against the contraception mandate.

Release the lawyers and let them fight it out.

We’re allowing serious encroachment into freedoms won through Griswold and Roe v. Wade already, something I write about at length in my book, in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” People on both sides are afraid of the outcome. It’s time Americans see in the light of day what’s happening in secret across this country, which amped up after Democrats blew the 2010 midterm elections, releasing an assault on unions, the middle class, as well as a war on women from the right.

This issue is one reason I find Ron Paul’s squeals of liberty absurd, even hypocritical. He makes a mockery of his Libertarian stance when he puts himself on the side of the freedom is just for men crowd. He said in the debate that abortion is violent and he’s against violence. I guess he never considers the violence that hits a woman who is hit with an unwanted pregnancy she can’t handle. Has he never seen a poor woman in the throes of this type of destruction? Can he not imagine her anguish? Unfortunately, very few politicians can today, because we have a dearth of truly inspiring and compassionate leaders.

Women’s individual freedom is actually a conservative notion. Don’t tread on me and individual rights, which are heralded as sacrosanct on the right by conservatives, stop when it comes to a woman’s own freedoms for them, but as we saw in the health care debate, for Democrats, too. Why people don’t see this hypocrisy for what it is astounds me.

Music provided by the great chirp Etta James who passed away today.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

The tone deaf Cayman cash man gets cornered

By Taylor Marsh on 19 January 2012

Newt Gingrich led Mitt Romney 34-28 in PPP’s South Carolina polling last night, the first of what will be three nights of tracking. Ron Paul at 15%, Rick Santorum at 14%, Rick Perry at 5%, and Buddy Roemer at 3% round out the field. – Public Policy Polling

Why Cayman cash Mitt didn’t have a prepared answer for the tax return question is puzzling. He’s been programmed within an inch of his life since the start. From Forbes to Christian Science Monitor, few think it will matter. From Forbes:

The fact is that Romney is doing exactly the same thing that you and I do: he’s taking advantage of existing Tax Code. You wouldn’t expect him to volunteer to pay at a higher rate “just because” anymore than you would volunteer to give up your own mortgage interest deduction or offer to drop a personal exemption. There is absolutely nothing in the Tax Code that requires you to legally pay more taxes than you have to.

Romney’s tax return issue is in view, because even if he releases his 2011 returns, who doesn’t think they won’t be stacked for the election season? His dad released his financial information for several years, so that’s Mitt’s model.

It’s never the facts surrounding the candidate that takes him or her out, it’s the emotions the voter feels toward the candidate that do him in. It wasn’t the quote about firing people that did it by itself, it’s that it represented how people already feel about Mitt Romney.

“I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” – Mitt Romney

It’s the nervous laugh that came afterward, reminiscent of the Bret Baier interview, that sounds so sour, because $374,327 is anything but “not very much.”

Then comes the story I’ve been waiting to break, and it’s not that he tithes millions including stock options to the Mormon Church. It’s Mitt Romney stashing millions in the Cayman Islands. From ABC News:

But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.
Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Nothing Mitt Romney is doing is illegal and according to Brian Beutler and others, the Romney camp is also saying that his Cayman cash is taxed as if the funds were in the U.S., so anyone implying they’re tax havens are wrong. Then why the secrecy?

But even that misses the issue. In an Occupy era, perception colors reality more harshly, with the GOP’s Cayman cash man representing all that ails our economic system.

Seen in an atmosphere that has Perry endorsing Newt Gingrich, while Santorum squeaks out a win in Iowa, though he just doesn’t have what it takes to capitalize, you also have Sarah Palin giving a nod to Gingrich, too. If the air around Cayman cash Mitt starts to erode his electability argument, always the weakest case for any candidate, the establishment will start to get very nervous, though they should be already. Because though Mitt Romney is an uninspiring candidate, Newt Gingrich will get creamed in the general, because women won’t vote for him. I’m not even sure they will in South Carolina and I felt this way long before the Marianne Gingrich bombshell due to explode tonight on Nightline

We’re about to see what Mitt Romney’s made of and just how good his election machine is, as well as whether the establishment rallies around him. With the southern state nomination swing season upon us, Romney will be in for it if the new polling and Gingrich surge is real, but watch out if he wins on Saturday.

There is passion tied to Newt, but not Romney, which is why Mitt’s machine tried to take him out in Iowa. But the viper you only wound can kill you, even if you live to tell about it.

But no matter the bad week Romney’s having, the one who really needs South Carolina is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Newt was honest with Marianne Gingrich about his sexuality

By Taylor Marsh on 19 January 2012

“… Callista doesn’t care what I do. … He wanted an open marriage.” – Marianne Gingrich

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We’re on the other side of hell hath no fury, folks.

Marianne Gingrch has now given the interview she’s threatened to unpack, but was saving for the perfect moment. The result is not presidential, but it is human for a segment of his gender.

At least Bill Clinton had the survival instincts not to ask.

How interesting that after one failed marriage and in the throes of another, Newt Gingrich honestly opens up to tell his wife he wants to stay married, but desires to sleep with another woman, now his current wife, Callista.

It’s not great for the get out the women’s vote.

It’s no secret that I find Newt Gingrich not equipped or worthy of the presidency. However, this revelation is going to fizzle for a reason. But it will be delicious to watch tonight on Nightline.

Men of all political persuasions and religious affiliations, though the faithful don’t stray on Sunday, can relate to Newt’s request. Back in the ’90s I did enough interviews with men and research into sexuality and marriage to prove to me this is true, which I don’t believe changes over time.

What Marianne Gingrich’s confession confirms is that once women get a whiff they won’t vote for this man in a million years.

Whatever you say about Mitt Romney, and I’ll have a post up on him tonight that says a lot, he’s not repellent to women, a voting block neither party can win without.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Rick Perry to endorse Newt Gingrich

By Taylor Marsh on 19 January 2012

According to Carl Cameron and Chuck Todd, Perry will drop, but FNC says he will also endorse the Newtster. Burns & Haberman have a write-up.

He tried bashing gays in Iowa.

He tried race baiting in South Carolina, leading a charge on a new civil war on behalf of religion.

But he just doesn’t have the national chops.

Rick Perry is reportedly dropping out on quite a news day for the men who could benefit from his departure.

Marianne Gingrich in an interview is rumored, according to Fox News Channel, to say that Newt’s a wannabe swinger. If that image doesn’t launch your gag reflex nothing will. Such salacious sniping from an ex-wife seems made for South Carolina.

Then you have Rick Santorum “winning” Iowa, after a recount in that state. Oh, but lily-livered Republicans in that state won’t give it to him.

It leaves Mitt Cayman Cash Romney up against it, because the gaffes of this guy, as I’ve written before, are starting to pile up high. If Republicans start doubting Cayman Cash Mitt’s electability, what else does he have?

Looking at November, if you can’t beat Pres. Obama, you might as well beat him up and Newt’s the guy who can do that best.

Momentum Newt.

Who’s bringing the beer for tonight’s CNN debate?

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

J.F.K., King and the Archives of a Giant

By Taylor Marsh on 16 January 2012

**UPDATED**

There are nearly a million documents associated with the life of Martin Luther King Jr. These pages will present a more dynamic view than is often seen of Dr. King’s life and times. The documents reveal the scholar, the father, and the pastor. Through these papers we see the United States of America at one of its most vulnerable, most honest and perhaps most human moments in history. There are letters bearing the official marks of royalty and the equally regal compositions of children. You will see speeches, telegrams, scribbled notes, patient admonitions and urgent pleas. This spotlight shows you a glimpse of the remarkable history within this collection. – The King Center – Archives

Oh, the irony, MLK digital archives are brought to the world by J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dr. King‘s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King was destined to pave the way, not just for Barack Obama, but for another Democratic president back in his day, including J.F.K. Pres. Kennedy impacted my life a great deal through my big brother, which I write about in my new book. It’s why I wrote, produced and directed a one woman show “Weeping for J.F.K.” back in 2005. It took the collision of two great men to dismantle the prejudice of America’s political history, even if civil rights remains a scarred wound that doesn’t take much to rip open.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light, with a big push from Bobby, and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over.

Watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963 (audio), JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. had gotten through to Kennedy, revealing something from which J.F.K. had once been distanced, a world away.

John F. Kennedy’s address that June:

Good evening, my fellow citizens:
This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.
That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.
It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.
It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.
The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.
This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.
We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?
Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.
The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.
It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.
Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.
Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.
But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.
I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.
This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.
I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.
I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.
Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.
The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.
Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.
In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.
Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.
My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.
This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.
We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.
Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.
As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.
We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.
This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

It took constant campaigning from King, but JFK came to understand that action was required. Kennedy became the first president since Truman to trumpet the cause of civil rights. President John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation was met with fierce opposition by the southern delegations of Congress. He was assassinated before it became law.

The legislation LBJ finally signed was Kennedy’s hope for a new America. Had John F. Kennedy lived, his civil rights actions would have been met hard in the south during his 1964 campaign. JFK never lived to fight this fight. The legislation LBJ signed was Kennedy’s final vision, and the words LBJ spoke upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encapsulized the moment for history: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”

King’s eulogy upon JFK’s death proved the respect each man had won from the other and that politicians can change to forge great hopes for those oppressed. He said that John F. Kennedy lived his life to “move forward with more determination to rid our nation of the vestiges of racial segregation and discrimination.”

King made the men of the 1960s come his way, see the overwhelming injustices. Like many great men, history has given evidence that he was wholly human and flawed. His life force was gargantuan. His courage unbounded. His faith guided his life, because he knew his soul would live on and on. His memory has as well.

It’s not many a man who could change the course of John F. Kennedy’s life and his philosophy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had the power to do just that and it changed America forever.

Edited from post first published 1.15.07, re-posted once again on this Dr. King holiday.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Political Junky Thread, with Jimmy Fallon

By Taylor Marsh on 14 January 2012

It’s Saturday night and the floor is yours.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Former Obama Official Defends Romney on Bain Capital

By Taylor Marsh on 12 January 2012

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mitt Romney is running into headwinds in his own party for, of all things, being a successful capitalist. Newt Gingrich, in fact, has walked his charges back.

However, Tuesday on “Morning Joe”, Steve Rattner, a former Obama administration official, known as the Obama Administration’s Car Czar and Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury, defended Mitt Romney on Bain Capital, saying it’s not at all what either Gingrich or Perry are implying.

It’s not going to make Obama reelect very happy, because Democrats are depending heavily on their own negative Bain Capital campaign, which says the same things as anti-Romney conservatives.

“Fair is fair. … But I think these attacks are unfair. I think Mitt Romney, not only had a very successful career throughout business, but Bain Capital is a terrific, first class firm. Managing money mostly for foundations, for endowments, for pension funds on behalf of exactly the people Rick Perry thinks he’s trying to harm, and they had a great record with 80 or 90 investments, all of which made a lot of money for their investors… and he did it in a perfectly honorably, appropriate way. … – Steve Rattner, on “Morning Joe” (comes at around 3:11 in video above)

I’ve written several tough pieces on Stephen Rattner, most recently when he said he might write a check to Scott Brown, because Elizabeth Warren was “on the wrong side of a lot these issues.” But this is someone who is considered a Wall Street whiz, whose wife, Maureen White, has raised millions for Democrats, and someone who is going to vote for Obama in November.

Let me also say something about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism in conjunction with his ethics, business and personal. There has never been a hint of impropriety in his life. This guy comes off stiff for a reason. He is, but he’s also deeply righteous, which is rooted in his religion, with the ethics of faith part of his business life as well. Like all fundamentalist faiths, Mormonism is very rigid, which also acts as the set backdrop for Romney’s entire life. But there is a reason I’ve labeled him Mr. Ice (Barack Obama is Mr. Cool), which also comes out of his Mormon faith that is rooted in rules not compassion, which will be fully seen once everyone reads the new Vanity Fair article, The Dark Side of Mitt Romney.

Come November, if Mitt Romney is the nominee and still has problems, it will be a lot larger than Bain Capital.

Think of candidate Barack Obama and what he weathered on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, but also his thin record.

Bill Clinton made it through bimbo eruptions that made “60 Minutes,” after a lounge singer produced the tapes and bragged of a long-term affair.

Anyone counting on Bain being the knockout blow on Mitt Romney is engaging in wishful thinking. It’s more likely to come through gaffes like “I like firing people…” which besides making him sound like a mean SOB, hits people emotionally that Romney doesn’t care about them, making Mitt unlikable.

Statements like this won’t help either, from Greg Sargent:

QUESTIONER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

Mitt Romney’s wrong. It’s not about envy, it’s about fundamental fairness and a playing field that people feel guys like him stack against them. If anything, this country’s long overdue for a little class warfare, if that’s what you want to call an argument meant to stir people that the middle class is being carved away.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Attacks on Mitt Romney Fizzle Out Quickly, Media Remains Part of the Story

By Taylor Marsh on 08 January 2012

Mitt Romney suggested in today’s debate that only rich people should run for office, and then quickly celebrated the fact that he’d forced a rival to take out a loan against his house. Romney said his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, had told him, “Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay a mortgage.” – Romney: Politics For The Rich

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ladies, we’ve arrived, the last two times I tried to watch the video above, the ads running before it were for Olay and Cover Girl. Hopefully they’ll get their act together so you can see the whole Meet the Press debate ~~because right now it’s hit and miss~~. ([update] Video working great now.)

It’s news that after neutering themselves in 14 other debates, the GOP wannabes on stage with Mitt Romney during the stellar Meet the Press (transcript here) debate finally decide to take him on. Unfortunately, when Newt Gingrich tried it he started off by whining about time keeping, then when he served up an attack on Romney’s Super PAC Mitt had an answer that unpacked every single charge against Gingrich, all of which were true.

But after those first 30 minutes, Romney’s rivals mostly stopped their criticism. In fact, the entire debate was a metaphor for the entire GOP campaign — piling on Romney lost its steam. Collectively, the group just doesn’t seem to know how to sustain the attack, and that explains why Romney is ahead now and why he is getting closer and closer to becoming a “de facto” nominee. (Romney also did a pretty good job of parrying the attacks that came his way.) – NBC First Read

The other important thing about the debates, last night vs. this morning, was the difference between ABC’s ineffectual, blundering attempt versus David Gregory’s tour de force moderation. The comparison is nothing but brutal, especially where Ms. Sawyer is concerned. Gregory’s questions and pacing were simply in a different league.

That all ended the instant NBC handed the “analysis” over to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who had Howard Fineman and Eugene Robinson on as his first guests. What then followed was an unexpected moment.

Romney mouthpiece, former Gov. John Sununu, blasted Matthews from the moment the pro-Obama former newsman handed the focus over to him.

“Reveling & wallowing.. Stop being ridiculous … You guys have an agenda” – John Sununu

They sure do and it’s not providing viewers with information so they can make up their minds without being spoon fed talking points that support one candidate over another.

Just because Fox News Channel is bought and paid for by Republican hacks doesn’t excuse MSNBC from offering the bookend for Democrats.

The real question is why can’t CNN capitalize on their competition’s obvious cheerleading coverage for one party over another at a time when both big two parties are losing affiliated voters, with independents sick of everyone picking sides over offering facts and truth?

People are so used to so-called political analysts picking a side they can’t recognize truth or facts when offered, with the messenger always getting blamed. It’s one thing to openly declare a conservative or liberal bias, but pimping for one politician over another is nakedly dishonest.

It was important to see Mitt Romney finally challenged, but it was way too little way too late to be able to do the job. He’s on a roll, but more importantly, he’s got confidence and has his talking points down so that he’s now become the teflon frontrunner.

However, as you’ll see from the story at the top of the page, Mitt Romney just can’t help telling the truth about his life, which often reveals his 1% privilege, which when compared to Pres. Obama’s up from his bootstraps biography is decidedly elite.

Conservatives missed their chance by not having a representative candidate to challenge Romney from the start. But people like Jim Demint are also to blame, because he didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility of backing a right wing conservative that might lose.

“I want to do whatever I can to convince my colleagues that Sen. Santorum is the right man,” Bauer told The Hill late Saturday afternoon. – The Hill

Now it’s simply too late.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Look Out Mitt, Newtmaggedon Catching On

By Taylor Marsh on 04 January 2012

Love him or hate him, Erick Erickson has captured the Republican zeitgeist of the season.

As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself. But by God Mitt Romney may now get the political beating everyone has been expecting him to get. Newt Gingrich has nothing left to lose. He can go Newtlear against the guy he sees as having destroyed him. Newt Gingrich can unleash unmitigated hell against MItt Romney and just like the attacks on Newt were true, they’ll all be true about MItt Romney too.

His analysis that Rick Perry’s policy people were good, while Santorum’s retail politics didn’t prove squat, reveals how mediocre a political analyst he is, but he’s still got the beat of the right’s pulse. His point about “Newtlear,” which I call Newtmageddon, however, is important, because it’s not just about Gingrich versus Mitt. Faith leaders are on the warpath, too, joining the Rush Limbaugh crowd, trying to prevent another McCain type nomination; that he will endorse Romney today is the kiss of death to conservatives.

Jonathan Martin has an interesting report that’s representative of the battle gone wild on the right:

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.
“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.

Call it the Huckabee hangover.

After having their dream candidate in 2008, conservative faith leaders in 2012 are faced with several candidates representing their interests. Question is how to attempt to winnow a field of social conservative candidates and push politicians out who just won’t quit.

Even Rick Perry, who basically delivered a concession speech last night, is now headed back to New Hampshire now that Bachmann has bowed out. But Perry performing so poorly in Iowa, even after going full tilt on his religiosity, proves not even some Republicans get evangelical voters. From the Wall Street Journal in early December:

Mr. Perry is making an aggressive pitch to unify the evangelical bloc, pouring his sizable financial war chest into TV ads that declare he is “not ashamed” to be a Christian, that criticize gays serving openly in the military, and that vow to end President Obama’s “war on religion.”
[...] Yet the flaw in this strategy is assuming that cultural conservatives have somehow missed the past three years of economic turmoil and Obama overreach, and intend to vote a religious line. What it misses is that social conservatives have seen a lot since 2008, and that this time they see the stakes as too high to take another Mike Huckabee flyer. They aren’t likely to be unified this time around.
By most estimates, evangelicals make up between 50% and 60% of the conservative primary electorate. Yet a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that some 70% of likely caucus-goers list the economy as their top issue; 14% listed social issues. Or how about this: A recent Public Policy Polling survey found more voters (42%) had “major concerns” with a candidate who supported an individual health mandate than they did (34%) a candidate who had cheated on a spouse.

The knee jerk analysis on evangelical voters revolves around Mr. Romney’s Mormonism, which matters to some, but it’s hardly that simple. Nothing is today, with the Democratic and Republican parties hemorrhaging members and politics on the grass roots level fracturing all monoliths.

Ralph Reed, yes the former mastermind that was taken down by his Abramoff and Tom Delay connections, is back and CNN’s rehabilitating him. From Reed today:

Here’s how the evangelical vote broke down: 32% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul, 13% each for Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry, 6% for Michele Bachmann and 1% for Jon Huntsman.
…So when commentators prognosticate about the “evangelical vote,” we might want to ask them, “which one?” For there are there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement…

Many social conservatives likely don’t believe a true conservative would ever be elected governor of Massachusetts.

It’s a good point and also why, regardless of the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney among the right, he remains the candidate Obama reelect is targeting.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Mitt Wins Iowa, but the Story is Rick Santorum

By Taylor Marsh on 04 January 2012

Karl Rove said just after 2:00 p.m. eastern time, confirming through official GOP sources, that Mitt Romney will win the Iowa caucuses by 14 votes. However, the final total was 30,015 to 30,007, which is a win of 8 votes. Last night I wrote that a Romney win was huge and he’s got bragging rights, but the story out of Iowa is Rick Santorum and the fact that conservatives have their shot.

You can dissect the political mumbo jumbo of why Iowa gets to go first, but if anything reveals why it’s Rick Santorum’s path to victory.

It’s about maneuvering the field by considering what our country once was, a small group of unaffiliated states at a time when media didn’t exist. Campaigning the old fashion way in Iowa, perhaps, gets us in touch with who we once were, not all of it good, by the way. The trouble is because of this the winner rarely translates to the nomination.

Of course, Rick Santorum wouldn’t have had a chance in Iowa if Republicans had a strong field of candidates that appealed to hard core consevatives, but you go with the politicians you’ve got.

So, conservatives finally have their anti-Romney and this one comes with a right-wing social agenda that’s backed up by true blue collar sensibilities. Mitt Romney has neither.

What Rick Santorum also has is Newt Gingrich at his back. A man who’s out of revenge against the man who took him out in Iowa. Gingrich is coming for Mitt Romney with the intent of taking him out.

Santorum’s also got John McCain reportedly endorsing Romney, which will bind conservatives to Santorum forever.

The win, coupled with John McCain and who Mitt Romney is, will also bring Rush Limbaugh and right-wing radio to Santorum’s side.

Rick Santorum, however, is also a man who is against birth control, but loved pork barrel spending, so it’s a target rich environment for Mitt Romney’s oppo murder team.

The sound Santorum is hearing right now is not the buzz of victory. It’s the whirring of Romney Super PAC, preparing to carpet bomb him. – David Axelrod’s, via Twitter

Santorum’s speech, however, was a great moment for this Pennsylvania son of a coal miner. He struck blue collar chords that not one single Republican has touched and he did it a hell of a lot better than Barack Obama has ever done.

Rick Santorum’s extremism is reprehensible and it’s stunning to think the Republicans have given the nod to a man who doesn’t believe in birth control. There’s no way to soften that up, nor is his closed mindedness on gay rights anything but anti-American. But he’s also the first person, beyond Ron Paul, who can talk the language of foreign policy, however right wing, with any conviction and foundation against Pres. Obama.

The man also speaks with real heart and empathy that allows him to connect, something that neither Mitt Romney, who gave a horrible speech, or Pres. Obama possess.

Mitt Romney had the presidential teleprompter set up, but after Rick Santorum started speaking he took it down.

Remind you of anyone?

At least Romney took it down.

Now all Rick Santorum needs is a lot of money and an instant infrastructure that can compete with Mitt Romney, which isn’t going to happen.

Now it’s off to New Hampshire.

“It is not necessarily about the history of his involvement on Wall Street,” Huntsman said, shortly after addressing a room full of doctors and other medical employees at Dartmouth Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “It is the fact that he has raised so much money from the large banks, the banks that need to be right-sized. If you are the largest recipient of funds from Wall Street, and in particular the large banks, you are not going to be inclined to want to change that model. Because those who run those banks want no change, they profit off the status quo and clearly they are not going to be inclined to want to bring about any change.” – Sam Stein, Huffington Post

Now what’s left to wonder is when will Sarah Palin endorse?

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Santorum Surge and Alan Colmes’ Callousness

By Taylor Marsh on 03 January 2012

At Santorum’s first stop, in Polk City, the coffee shop’s maximum occupancy was listed as 49, but at least 200 filled the room and 100 more spilled into the street. In the media throng were journalists from Japan, Russia, France, Britain, Italy and Australia. “They weren’t here last week,” a pleased Santorum told the crowd. Enjoy it, Senator. They won’t be here for long. – Dana Milbank

Alan Colmes is the dumbest Democratic pundit ever to be allowed in front of a camera. For this stupidity alone he should forfeit his seat at the next cool kids cable yakker dinner.

Mediaite captured video of the clash between Colmes and Rick Santorum, which revolved around the death of the Santorums’ prematurely born son. The story is now heating up the debate about Iowa. It will also become a standard caricature of the reaction of Democrats to deeply personal issues on life, which the right will use to bash Democrats, who will then be expected to disavow Colmes, and the beat goes on.

Colmes has apologized, but he’s been talking for a living for a very long time and as a veteran, this type of decision to weigh in on such a personal subject will follow him for a very long time.

This incident defines the ugliness of politics today and is just another reason people are walking away from both parties in droves, though since 2008 Democrats have been hemorrhaging more affiliated voters than Republicans.

Family values are the most important issue to Iowa Evangelicals, with Rick Santorum finally having his turn in the main ring of the Republican circus. It was also made possible by the right’s fear of Iran, which Ron Paul’s candidacy inflamed, and is the favorite foreign policy subject for Republicans in this election.

This is mainly because Pres. Obama has been revealed as a Republican hawk on foreign policy elements, channeling George W. Bush most of the time, leaving the right few lines of attack. If the 2012 election was about foreign policy, Pres. Obama would win in a walk.

It won’t be, which brings up another avenue for Rick Santorum to mine with conservative primary voters, who are desperately looking for someone other than Mitt Romney, while ignoring Ron Paul because being anti-war for the right is worse than a YouTube surfacing showing you beating your mother.

Rick Santorum has been active on poverty issues for most of his life and is the son of a coal miner who can talk about blue collar issues. He got his ass handed to him in his last election, losing by 18 points, but that was at a time when Republicans were out and Santorum’s extreme position on Terry Schiavo obviously didn’t sit well with Democratic Pennsylvania, nor does the reality that Rick Santorum is extreme in his social views, especially where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

If Santorum could weld his “family values” platform with a blue collar pitch that weaves Christianity and charity with a middle class jobs priority pitch, he might have something, at least to give an honest run at Romney.

Newt Gingrich is about to revive his flame throwing routine, so it would be nice to have a positive candidate taking it to Romney where he’s weakest, but perceived strongest: on middle class and jobs, instead of his executive ownership and Wall Street protection racket platform.

There are whispers out of Iowa that this last event between Lowry and Colmes could give Santorum that last lift needed to land him in the winner’s circle.

However, none of the candidates are of the caliber of Pres. Obama, with Mitt Romney the only Republican who can come close to the campaign needed to take on Barack Obama, who is as formidable a politician as we’ve seen in the modern era, which is how he’s been able to fake Democrats and progressives out of their own party.

People ask all the time where have all the moderate Republicans gone?

They now comprise the bulk of the Democratic Party, with the most famous moderate Republican in America the President himself.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Mitt Cracks a Joke

By Taylor Marsh on 28 December 2011

Don’t look now, but Mitt Romney suddenly seems like the Iowa front-runner. …The former Massachusetts governor has carefully tempered expectations in Iowa all year… But as a crowd of conservative opponents keep the anti-Romney vote divided, his odds of a victory in the state that humbled him four years ago have never been better. – Politico [update]

Romney’s having a good last lap in Iowa, even as Ron Paul’s lead remains, and mainly because Newt’s become unhinged.

Gingrich’s most recent telling development came when his campaign didn’t qualify for the Virginia ballot, made worse because it’s his current residence. Now he’s going negative after whining about Romney’s negative ads that did the job.

It reveals why Romney, through all the moments of others rising, has always remained the steady bet. Writing a book that covers 20 years of politics, now available in print on Amazon, including the opening salvo of 2012 in the midst of such volatility, I made the decision to come down on Romney being the only real choice in a desperate field, which at times looked ridiculous in the contagion of snapshot moments.

The most important moment so far in the campaign has been the steady rise and prowess of Ron Paul in Iowa. It seems to have awakened Republicans from their self-destructive stupor, with the coalescing wave of consensus the latest rising tide.

RNC chairman Preibus stated recently that Republicans “will have a nominee pretty quickly.”

John Hinderaker endorses Mitt:

In electing a president, we are choosing someone to run the Executive Branch. A leader, to be sure, but not a speechmaker, a bomb-thrower, a quipster, a television personality or an exemplar of ideological purity. At this point in our history, the United States desperately needs a leader who understands the economy, the world of business, and, more generally, how the world works. We have had more than enough of a leader who was good at giving speeches and was ideologically pure, but who had no clue how the economy works or how the federal government can be administered without resort to graft and corruption. It is time for a president who knows what he is doing.

I’m not convinced at all that Mr. Romney understands “how the world works,” as Hinderaker posits. On foreign policy, Mr. Romney doesn’t come close to Pres. Obama’s current standing, though I would argue that Obama’s mirror image of George W. Bush doesn’t provide much of an opportunity for praise from someone like me. But outside of Ron Paul, obviously taking a page from Obama’s 2008 long view strategy, Mitt Romney’s the only one who was prepared for the 2012 campaign slug fest.

Newt Gingrich clearly was not, believing that his bomb throwing Fox News Channel appearances and the memory of his speakership, which isn’t remembered fondly, would carry the day, but it may only be remembered as a way to strengthen his future book sales and speaking engagements.

Over at Townhall, a right wing columnist targets the myth of Romney’s electability, choosing to cite his Mormonism as a problem. It’s a reprehensible line, so I suggest you read Alan Grayson on the subject instead.

The main issue progressives are hitting is Romney’s vulture capitalism past. Steve Benen hit it yesterday, wondering if anyone would find his Bain Capital – Wall Street coziness appealing. In an Occupy era it’s an understandable target.

Hitting Romney on not releasing his taxes and “secrecy,” also citing that he used the tax code to pay less taxes, seems to be something Democrats believe will work against Romney. I’m unconvinced. A story from the Boston Globe before Christmas revealed Romney’s retort on the coming taxes and Bain attack:

“We don’t have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never,’’ he said yesterday after greeting voters at an Agway farm and hardware store here. “We’ll see what the future holds. We’ve released, of course, all of the information required by law, which is a pretty extensive release. But down the road we’ll see what happens if I’m the nominee.’’
Romney also indicated that he would not shy away from a legal tax break that shelters partners at private equity firms, like Bain Capital, from high tax rates on the largest part of their take-home profits.
“I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there’s an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity,’’ he said.

There isn’t an American in this country with wealth, Democratic, Libertarian, Independent or Republican, who wouldn’t do the very same thing as Romney. As for Bain, Romney’s already got an answer prepared and it’s in defense of capitalism. It may not be popular with progressives and Occupy, but it’s a pure form of Republicanism that has won before, many times.

I’ve never wavered from the belief that Mitt Romney would prevail to become the Republican nominee. Ron Paul’s now helping hasten that inevitability.

The quicker Republicans get a nominee the faster we can get to the next political moment of 2012, which is whether outside candidates will emerge as anything other than a side show.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

IOWA: Gingrich 22, Ron Paul 21

By Taylor Marsh on 14 December 2011

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%. – Paul Closes in on Gingrich (PPP)

If anything describes Newt Gingrich it is “serial hypocrisy,” to quote Ron Paul and his video above, which got airtime on cable.

The negative incoming on Newt Gingrich is having an impact, which it should.

The daily barrage from conservatives from George Will to Charles Krauthammer to Joe Scarborough, who has been ruthlessly cold, is another problem.

Newt’s real problem, however, is himself and the cumulative history of his past and what he’s been doing with his life, that when digested, has got to be impossible for any principled conservative to stomach.

On another Newt note, during an Iowa focus group, Craig Berman, a Tea Party guy who was about to join the Gingrich campaign as their new political director in Iowa, evidently jumped the shark. From the Des Moines Register:

“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon,” Bergman said during the focus group, according to The Iowa Republican. “There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”

In a statement, the Gingrich campaign nixed Bergman’s hire, saying he “agreed to step away from his role with Newt 2012.” The rest of the response from the campaign talks about how this is “inconsistent with Newt 2012′s pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign,” without calling out and blasting what is clearly religious bigotry. Gingrich’s people obviously don’t want to offend these so-called religious people, because they might lose their votes.

If there is any political justice (there rarely is) and if Iowa conservatives have any real core (I’m not sure they do, especially those bigoted evangelicals), Republican primary voters will give the nod to Ron Paul.

Not being on the ground in Iowa, however, I’m wondering if his supporters will be able to handle the caucus atmosphere. I’ve experienced a caucus before and they’re not for the uninitiated.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Rick Perry’s Latest Oops

By Taylor Marsh on 08 December 2011

With Newt Gingrich now capturing the wild imaginings of the rabid right primary voter, it’s no wonder Rick Perry’s been reduced to this latest stunt. The ad is titled “Strong.” It divided the Perry campaign, according to a report by Sam Stein.

But not everyone was comfortable with the script. When the ad was being crafted several weeks ago, Perry’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it “nuts,” according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad’s main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio’s objections.
“Tony was against it from the get-go,” Warfield wrote. “It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production.”

The folks over at Americablog noticed something special about the ad, Perry’s jacket, with the photo below coming from them.

If you haven’t had your complete fill of Rick Perry, check out Vanity Fair‘s January issue. From “the rumors about gay affairs” to the “painkiller use,” it’s brutal.

Some people just aren’t meant for the national stage. But his fashion choice in “Strong” really is quite precious.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

1 2 ... 15 Next »

TM MUST READS

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down
This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well [...]
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 [...]
Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise
Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating [...]
Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS
“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of [...]
U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed
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 [...]
Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer
The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, [...]
Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats
The Colbert ReportGet More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive As much as our national media deserves [...]
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 [...]
Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
Mitt, Newt, that Guy Ron Paul, and Democratic Trouble
UPDATED Before we get to Iowa, something that’s not getting covered deserves mention, because it ties into the opposite [...]
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 [...]
Barack Obama, the Sane Republican
The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read. I am “uncommitted” [...]
Why Newt Committed The Cardinal Sin Among Conservatives
We should not expect Gingrich to understand this until he understands that his work for Freddie Mac was not, as [...]
The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears
WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came [...]
Obama’s Fight for Cordray Missing for Elizabeth Warren
“But the bottom line is that we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure [...]
Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues
**UPDATED** In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [...]
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 [...]
Chris Matthews: ‘There’s nothing to root for.’
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot [...]
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 [...]
OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep
The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott [...]
Obama’s Lost Moon Shot on Energy
“… We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do [...]
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 [...]
Getting that 1979 Feeling Again
It’s déjà vu all over again. via David Weigel Pres. Obama has never understood the incredible gift he was handed [...]

TM Connect

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

Women Want Their Birth Control

Al Sharpton Schools Morning Joe

Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?

Chris Christie: ‘Gingrich has embarrassed the party…’

Our Womb is Finally Equal (at least for now)

The tone deaf Cayman cash man gets cornered

Newt was honest with Marianne Gingrich about his sexuality

Rick Perry to endorse Newt Gingrich

J.F.K., King and the Archives of a Giant

Political Junky Thread, with Jimmy Fallon

Former Obama Official Defends Romney on Bain Capital

Attacks on Mitt Romney Fizzle Out Quickly, Media Remains Part of the Story

Look Out Mitt, Newtmaggedon Catching On

Mitt Wins Iowa, but the Story is Rick Santorum

Santorum Surge and Alan Colmes’ Callousness

Mitt Cracks a Joke

IOWA: Gingrich 22, Ron Paul 21

Rick Perry’s Latest Oops

Tag Cloud

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TM MUST READS

New Media