TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

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

Tag Archives | Republicans

Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context

By on 02 February 2012

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. ..Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. – Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

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

Warning if you watch the video above, you’ll need a seat belt to escape the spinning by Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, who has disgraced herself through her decision to take a McCarthyite House investigation as gospel.

The Democrats and progressive advocates of Planned Parenthood act as if they’ve never heard of Sun Tsu. But every battle is won before it’s waged. That’s how this entire conversation moved right to the point where Komen feels it has cover to adopt ideology over public health priorities.

One question that remains worth asking, even if I’m the only one asking it, is why was there no outlet or relationship to tap for those inside Komen to reach out to progressive allies to prepare or fight off the defunding of Planned Parenthood? How could Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood be caught so totally flat-footed on a decision that impacted the organization so profoundly? Is it possible Richards knew it was coming and decided taking the battle on after it was decided was the only option she had? If that’s remotely possible, the left is worse than even I imagined.

But if ever two events represented the right’s relationship today with the 99% they are the dueling events of Nancy Brinker of Komen and Mitt Romney for the 1%.

Mitt Romney talked about not being concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.

Brinker and Susan G. Komen damaging one of those safety nets for poor women by pulling funding for Planned Parenthood reveals what a Mitt Romney presidency might mean.

Meanwhile, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000, which goes on top of the money so many are donating to Planned Parenthood since Komen flipped wingnut.

The primary function of Planned Parenthood is reproductive health care, which lives well beyond abortion, with the funds received by Susan G. Komen kept separate from abortion services, which is a fraction of what it does. Now, Megan McArdle is talking about the funds being fungible:

It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.

Why is it absurd? McArdle’s lazy analysis of “probably helping to fund abortion” flippantly ignores the impact when a woman is denied any reproductive treatment she cannot afford.

The upper crust analyst class is a scourge.

It also doesn’t begin to deal with the investigative yarn being used by Komen to ostracize Planned Parenthood, which is the primary goal of the right, no matter who gets hurt. That the biggest anti Planned Parenthood contingent also absurdly believes abortion is linked to breast cancer proves how far out on the limb these people will go.

Democrats and progressives are outwitted and outgunned in this department, because they simply won’t wage the fight, always careful to appear moderate while clinging to the coveted centrism above principle or any philosophical foundation.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I believe this event was allowed to happen through negligence and careless naivete of Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, but also their progressive and Democratic allies. They should have seen this coming, because it’s been in the works for years.

What could they have done? State unflinchingly and unapologetically that the rights of women where our own bodies are concerned are nothing less than a basic human right. That means you fight equally on every front and don’t apologize.

However, Democrats and progressives have not only not been diligent, but they’ve become increasingly and embarrassingly meek to the point of weakness in standing on a line and refusing to compromise on a woman’s basic human right to control her own body. That’s how the right carved out an investigative position over which to wage the Komen battle.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer. – Daily Caller

You don’t “fight cancer” by cutting out cervical screenings and mamograms to women who can’t afford them.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” is the flag under which Susan G. Komen, Mitt Romney and their conservative apologists stand.

This never would have happened if the left was as strong in refusing to compromise on human rights issues of women’s individual freedoms. Compromising this fundamental purpose is how Planned Parenthood got in this position.

You can’t carve out portions of the women’s human rights philosophy because it makes you uncomfortable or you don’t have the spine to make the argument. Well, you can, but the result is that the right beats you and the least able to fend for themselves get crushed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Preparing for the Spring Occupation

By on 02 February 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Last week I wrote about The Rahm Emanuel way, and the Occupy way, to get ready for the Chicago G8 / NATO Summit. That summit takes place in May, and that month appears to be a very significant part of the future planning of Occupy / 99% and related movements around the world. On the other side of the globe it will be a Fall rather than Spring offensive of course, but international efforts to coordinate are taking place.

It isn’t as if things haven’t and won’t happen between now and then, but a significant part of what will happen is focused on May as a month of global action. For some of the anti-Occupiers who are aware of this, it very quickly became, of course, tied to “communist Russia,” a phrase I’ve seen in several places. The burning of a U.S. flag by one person participating in the Oakland Occupy / PD skirmishes over the weekend resulted in the same arguments made a few decades ago, although most of what I saw on the OWS Twitter feed were of the “this proves all Occupiers hate America” variety. A good number of condemnations along those lines show up on that feed, so that’s nothing new.

Most likely more of the same will appear following the planned “Feb 4th Day of Mass Action to Stop U.S. War on Iran,” as described at Occupy Seattle. According to the post, “over 23 cities” have indicated participation. Given how the anti-war actions all but disappeared with Obama’s election, and given all that’s happened since – including the sad and scary increased use of drones – it will be interesting to see how much attention this Saturday’s efforts will gain. Actually, two other “givens” – 2012 elections and Super Bowl – it’s likely anti-war actions will be lucky to even be noticed. Priorities, you know.

Related to attention given is the consistent and growing use of police to curtail freedom of the press. Reporters Without Borders, based on just such actions, significantly lowered the U.S. standing in their Press Freedom Index.

This also seems related, via OWS News:

Another subpoena to Twitter for Occupy related account

Twitter today (January 30) informed user @destructuremal that the State of New York had issued a subpoena for his account information. The account holder, Malcolm Harris of New York City, is an Occupy Wall Street activist who has been involved in movement organizing since at least September 2011.

Some planned actions between now and May are ongoing, such as the “move your money” step. From Adbusters:

When the G8 meet in Chicago in May, it will be a major moment of truth for the global economy.

Already there are all sorts of ideas percolating – Robin Hood tax, banning high frequency flash trading, a true cost economy, bio-economics – that will lead to reform of the global financial system.

But in the meantime there is something we can all do to set the stage for #Occupy Chicago, and that is the personal action to move our money away from the big banks.

Some of the Occupy actions are probably more surprising than others, in terms of the focus. For example, via Common Dreams: “OWS Stands With Farmers, Says Enough! to Monsanto.” The huge corporation controls the genetics of almost 90% of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

… in New York City, the Occupy Wall Street movement is calling for protests to support 60 family farmers, small and family-owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations that are challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed in federal court.

And among other recent Occupy happenings:

Via the Miami Herald, Cops break up Occupy Miami camp:

Scores of police swept through the downtown location of Occupy Miami Tuesday night, ejecting several dozen demonstrators and arresting a few of them while shutting down the protest camp after three and a half months.

The police, wearing riot gear and banging batons on their plastic shields as they advanced, cleared demonstrators from within half a-dozen blocks of the camp site … .

Several Miami Occupiers indicated they already had plans to move to other Occupied sites.

Directly related to May planning, from Occupy News:

Occupiers from NYC are visiting occupations in 16 northeast cities to help organize for a spring offensive.

About that “offensive,” from a global perspective, via Take the Square:

Spring is coming – US Occupy call for a General Strike on May 1

More from Take the Square:

Global Assembly …

The date and time for our next May 2012 common actions meeting will take place next Saturday, the 4th of February at 19:00 UTC.

A list of participants includes those from the U.S., Brazil, Europe, Western Africa, New Delhi, Beijing and Australia.

And from Indignados/Occupy/Anonymous:

May 2012 #12M12 #15M12 – INDIGNADOS/OCCUPY/ANONYMOUS JOIN THE GLOBAL SWARM

Following discussions in international forums, on-line … as well as face to face, it was decided that 12th May should be the next global action day, and May 15, the day of a new transnational form of mobilization.

On a practical and political (if those two things can actually be considered together) basis: I’m wondering how all of this will influence the 2012 campaigns, including congressional. More importantly to me, I’m wondering how all of this will influence what I think is a desperate need to get out from under the domination of the two parties who routinely pledge allegiance to their Corporate masters, but keep getting elected anyway.

(May 2012 poster via Occupy Pix
American Spring poster via OWS Posters)

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Media Made a Laughingstock Chasing The Donald’s Endorsement

By on 02 February 2012

TM NOTE: HostGator botched its hosting duties, so I have been able to write today, but I’m finally back in now (though I still can’t get emails). Onward…

As the Las Vegas Review Journal predicts a massive win in Nevada (pronouced Neva-as in cat-da) by Mitt Romney, traditional and new media outlets fell over themselves last night and today trumpeting The Donald’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich, or so they thought.

There’s only one reason I didn’t write about the pending Donald Trump endorsement last night. It’s because when the news of a Newt Gingrich endorsement started ricocheting across the internets, I simply didn’t think it rang true. The Donald’s ego would never allow him to be caught being so absolutely wrong about something that happens to matter to his crowd, the 1%.

As I wrote earlier, no candidate needs to drop out, because there haven’t been near enough delegates allotted. However, that doesn’t mean Newt Gingrich isn’t over in every other sense. He can still drag his pompous patootie all the way to the convention, but considering he split Tea Party voters with Romney in Florida, I’d say it’s going to get very lonely for Gingrich long before Super Tuesday in March, which could be good for him. That he doesn’t have the organization will become apparent quickly, so his whole charade of a candidacy depends on the generosity of Sheldon Adelson.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman went with “Trump to endorse Newt” at around 9:30 p.m. last night, but that became “Trump to endorse Newt…or Romney?” when Politico figured out they’d gotten it wrong. Haberman, who is as good as it gets, went with this cover: The Times, in fact, went first.

Indeed they did. This is what Political Wire wrote yesterday: Update: The New York Times reports Trump will endorse Newt Gingrich.

That’s the only remaining evidence that they did, because the original announcement has been papered over with something that now reads like this:

10:37 a.m. | Updated RENO, Nev. — Newt Gingrich swept into Nevada on Wednesday trailing far behind Mitt Romney in state polls and lacking much campaign organization, but his aides were ready to boast of a flashy new endorsement: Donald Trump was supposed to announce his support of Mr. Gingrich on Thursday in Las Vegas, according to a senior campaign official.

But today came word that Mr. Trump – at least for now – was preparing to endorse Mitt Romney.

The confusion may reinforce impressions of disarray in the Gingrich campaign in Nevada, evident as the candidate hit the ground after a daunting defeat in the Florida primary and immediately became embroiled in a dust-up over a canceled meeting with Nevada’s governor.

Only the Wall Street Journal remained smartly circumspect in “Donald Trump: An Endorsement?”

Wingnut blogs and many others ran with the Newt endorsement, following the crowd.

The person who remains the one to watch on Romney news, Matt Drudge, had the facts from the start. The Donald backs Mitt Romney and if he wins the nomination there will be no third party or independent run for Mr. Trump.

Today begins the ratcheting down of the Republican circus parade that’s been so entertaining for the last year. Not too many weeks from now it’s going to get deadly serious.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By on 02 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

“Warning: There is an occupier entering the building,” and others are Occupying the Super Bowl

By on 01 February 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

The Occupy / 99% movement is about some very serious things. The police actions in Oakland and DC are among them. So is the effort in Indiana to, as WaPo puts it, bring the state into the “right-to-work era,” an interesting choice of words.

But first, because sometimes I just need a respite from the very serious, a focus on the absurd and the creative.

The People’s Library, which originated in Zuccotti Park, continues working to provide reading material, lectures, publication of original works, and creating mobile “libraries,” placing a few books on a park bench. Not without NYPD attention. A post at the The People’s Library, The Sad Story of Five Imprisoned Children’s Books, illustrates something of the absurd direction “police protection” sometimes goes. Obviously planned to make a point, last week Stephen Boyer and some 20 other people, armed with the receipt given at the time the books were confiscated, marched to One Police Plaza, to liberate them. The books, that is. Only Boyer was allowed to enter. He writes:

My fellow occupier cohorts were lucky to have stayed behind, as the NYPD took my photo using facial recognition software upon entering the building, they made copies of my ID, they radioed to officers throughout the building, ‘WARNING: THERE IS AN OCCUPIER ENTERING THE BUILDING.’

Alas, neither the ID nor the receipt proved sufficient to free the books from police custody. Boyer and other Occupiers left bookless, and NYC impressionable children were riot-gear protected from suspicious literature.

From Rolling Stone, news about “Occupy This Album.”

Occupy Wall Street now has an A-list soundtrack: the compilation Occupy This Album … will be released sometime this spring. …

Several of the contributors, including Joan Baez and Crosby and Nash, performed at the New York OWS site while it was still active. Proceeds from Occupy This Album will benefit the Occupy movement … .

In addition to Baez, Crosby and Nash, contributors include Debbie Harry, Jackson Browne, Yoko Ono, Third Eye Blind, Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, Tom Morello, Devo, Lucinda Williams, Yo La Tengo, Loudon Wainwright III, and Junkyard Empire.

Okay, I know this next one is a stretch, but I was thinking of the absurd, and so Newt Gingrich came to mind. On the campaign trail in Florida, Newt said: “I am an American, and Americans are instinctively grandiose.” That was him cleverly responding to Romney, of course. But here’s the thing: the crowd cheered. Maybe they don’t know what “grandiose” means. Maybe they’re grandiose. Maybe it had nothing to do with what Gingrich was saying. The line was followed by a pause, and so they responded to the cue to clap and cheer.

The fact that Newt, post-Florida, is talking about his first day in the White House, just adds to the surreal-but-unfortunately-typical game that is our “only choice” by which we play our carefully restricted role in determining which half of the Duopoly gets to be the WH representative of the oligarchy for the next four years.

Newt’s “Americans are instinctively grandiose” reminded me of those photos from the early days of OWS, with Wall Street-ers ostentatiously sipping champagne as they stood on the balcony above the Occupiers. Or similarly, the business school students, pretentiously looking down on Occupiers, with their “Get in my bracket” sign.

Which also brought me back to the NYPD’s “Warning: There is an occupier entering the building” announcement. There should be similar notices regarding political wannabe’s, and sitting Electeds. Something like, “Warning: There are instinctively grandiose individuals trying to buy your attention.”

Occupy the Super Bowl

And speaking of grandiose, there’s the Super Bowl, where the “world champion” of teams that only exist in one nation is very expensively crowned.

From Dave Zirin at The Nation:

The sheer volume of the Super Bowl is overpowering: the corporate branding, the sexist beer ads, the miasma of Madison Avenue–produced militarism, the two-hour pre-game show. But people in the labor and Occupy movements in Indiana are attempting to drown out the din with the help of a human microphone right at the front gates of Lucas Oil Stadium.

The labor and Occupy efforts are related to

… the Republican-led state legislature aims to pass a law this week that would make Indiana a ‘right-to-work’ state. …

This has drawn peals of protest throughout the state, with the Occupy and labor movement front and center from small towns to Governor Mitch Daniels’s door at the State House. …

Just as the parties start a week in advance, so have the protests. More than 150 people—listed as seventy-five in USA Today, but I’ll go with eyewitness accounts—marched through last Saturday’s Super Bowl street fair in downtown Indianapolis … .

Zirin writes about

the reality of life for working families in the city of Indianapolis. Unemployment is at 13.3 percent, with unemployment for African-American families at 21 percent. … Such pain amidst the gloss of the Super Bowl and the prospect of right-to-work legislation is, for many, a catalyst to just do something.

Quoting a local Occupier, April Burke:

‘I see right-to-work for what it is: an attack on not only organized labor but on all working-class people … . Rushing the passage of RTW in the State of Indiana on the eve of the Super Bowl is an insult to the thousand of union members who built Lucas Stadium as well as the members of the National Football League Players Association who issued a statement condemning the RTW bill.’

Just because things are absurd doesn’t make them any less powerful. In fact, given the ongoing success of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, I’d say absurdity sells very well.

( Occupy This Album via Music for Occupy
Wall Street-ers Sipping Champagne photo via AlterNet
Get In Our Bracket photo via Think Progress )

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor…’

By on 01 February 2012

Mitt Romney’s focus is on middle income Americans, not the poor, but also not the rich. How he framed it is something else. What this man doesn’t understand about political framing would fill the Library of Congress.

To be fair, it was Pres. Obama who proposed 2012 budget cutting several billion dollars from the government’s energy assistance fund for the poor. But at least he has the ear to understand you don’t say out loud what Mitt Romney said today.

Today with Soledad O’Brien on CNN:

Romney says, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
O’Brien asked him to clarify his remarks saying, “There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.’”

Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”

For Mitt Romney it’s always giant steps forward, followed by falling on his face. He won’t win against Pres. Obama being the GOP’s gafferiffic candidate of choice, though when you look at Newt Gingrich’s graceless grandiosity, Mitt’s machine is definitely the big plus.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise

By on 01 February 2012

Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter. Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding. – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

While the right was laying ground for what just happened, the left was giving ground.

This Komen–Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists and, media bias aside, this appears to be a remarkable turning point. – Kathryn Lopez

Kathryn Lopez is correct and the abortion rights opponents earned it. Democrats and progressives have no one to blame but themselves.

Nothing happens suddenly on issues this large or in a vacuum. There is always a methodology to this type of madness and when you cede territory to people on a mission you rarely get it back.

In a statement by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, she says she’s “shocked and saddened.” How embarrassing for her. Others write words like “creep up” to describe what has been systematic strategy utilizing tactics that the left is too squeamish to consider.

As a liberal, all I can say is that the female leaders we have today not only aren’t up to the task, but progressives have failed immeasurably and completely to defend the ground stronger women who came before won.

This fight has been around for decades and revolves around abortion rights not cancer screening. But a tipping point occurred during the health care debate when Democrats chose to allow the Hyde Amendment to be codified into law. Until the Affordability Care Act, the Hyde Amendment had to be voted on yearly in the budget.

It signified Democrats and progressives had blinked and the right got the message.

At the time, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards wasn’t bothered by the move in ACA or the decisions by Democrats. But when Rep. Bart Stupak was given ground by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House in U.S. history who also empowered the Catholic Church during health care negotiations, something fundamental shifted on the game board. Mr. Stupak was then elevated further through an unnecessary executive order signed by Pres. Obama and the message was sent and received by people who never give ground that Democrats weren’t going to suit up for the fight.

The Susan G. Komen decision is the result of getting beaten, with women across this country the victims because Ms. Richards, Ms. Pelosi, Rep. DeGette and the so-called progressive “pro-choice” caucus, along with many, many others never understood what compromise on issues of bedrock principle to the right would mean in the long-term.

We’ve seen it with Pres. Obama’s actions time and again.

The Susan B. Komen decision is about the abortion rights opponent forces winning a battle through squeezing the foundation, starting with getting them ostracized. Here’s the background if you’re interested. Komen’s current senior vice president public policy person is Karen Handel, a woman who wasn’t going to stop until the defunding of Planned Parenthood was a reality.

These are not people who capitulate and compromise for the sake of anything, unlike Democrats and progressives in Congress and their allies who set this scene up.

An entire chapter in my book, “Is Freedom Just for Men,” was written because I saw the erosion of women’s rights, which began with the Hyde Amendment decades ago. It then crescendoed with it being not only codified into law, but women are expected to find emergency insurance outside the normal routes, shrinking the pool of insured and opening the door to unavailability. In this chapter in my book, I cite all the “mini-Stupak” laws that have spread in a contagion across this country, because of the message sent by Democrats.

Susan G. Komen Foundation made the decision on Planned Parenthood because the right won critical seats in the 2010 midterms in a rabid campaign that Democrats didn’t engage fully, including on economics. It allowed Republicans to corner Planned Parenthood, which set up the investigation, which was written into Komen as something that disqualified an organization from funding.

As I wrote in “The Party’s Over,” for over 30 years Democrats have said women needed to vote for them to keep our rights secure. I’ve done that, trusted them, and with Democrats the only game in politics who aren’t cut out for the current fight, now look what has happened. What I was promised would never occur if I voted Democratic.

When you have female leaders so weak on fundamental issues of women’s individual freedoms that they are willing to give away foundational concessions on issues won through the courts it’s only a matter of time before you lose them. Putting party loyalty above all else is how this unfolded.

This was very well played strategy by the right whose tactics should have been seen a long way out. That the head of Planned Parenthood is “shocked” says it all.

Needless to say, I’m not.

Next you’ll hear a rallying cry from Democrats and others to fight back and that women’s rights are at stake! The mean anti-women’s coalition is targeting us all! Give money now!

Any organization taking your money to fund political prerogatives over the mission they’re touting doesn’t deserve one dime.

It goes beyond hypocrisy. It’s a betrayal of trust and purpose, using women as the coin.

This column has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

CNN: Romney ‘Shellacks’ Gingrich in Florida

By on 31 January 2012

Update: Introduced by Ann Romney, who is the best thing in the campaign, Mitt Romney finally decided to make a speech talking to the conservative base. It was exactly what he needed to do and it was good for him. Unfortunately, he couldn’t resist using the word “appease,” as well as a couple of other tone deaf words. Romney talked directly to the camera and made his first attempt to bring people on board. He also made the point to say that Republicans will be united in the fall.

Update 2: Newt Gingrich was the definition of a classless sore loser. He squealed against the establishment “in both parties.” Gingrich showed the depth and breadth of his grandiosity, especially after such a crushing defeat. It would have been surreal, but this man is bone-deep angry and he obviously intends to burn the Republican Party down around him if he doesn’t prevail.

Update 3: Ron Paul shows how it’s done, opening with a grace note to the winner Mitt Romney. He said he congratulated Romney, then told him he’d see him in the caucus states. The crowd around him is positively raucous. It’s impossible not to appreciate Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Update 4: Earlier in the evening Rick Santorum spoke from Nevada. He’s clearly running for the vice presidency.

_____original post below_____


“Mitt Romney is winning where the people live,” is how CNN’s John King described it.

Romney and Gingrich split the Tea Party 40% to 38% in Florida.

Gingrich won only by 3 points with evangelicals; among non-evangelicals Romney “shellacked,” John King’s words, Gingrich.

Gingrich is fleeing to Nevada.

They’ll meet Ron Paul in that state, with Jon Ralston saying he’s more organized than before, but where Mitt Romney has home court advantage, even if it is a caucus state.

The Republican Party in Nevada is, well… let’s just say weak.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Nancy Reagan Rejects Newt’s ‘Legitimate Heir’ Claim

By on 31 January 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

From NBC’s First Read:

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Mitt’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Moment

By on 31 January 2012



A confident Mitt Romney sings “America the Beautiful,” and very recently Obama riffed on Al Green.

More and more polls show two things: (1) tonight Mitt Romney will win Florida and (2) Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will combined get more votes. – Erick Erickson

There’s absolutely no reason Newt or Rick Santorum should get out after Florida.

Some delegate math: After tonight, just 115 delegates will have been awarded — out of 2,286 total delegates. So just 5% – Mike Murray, NBC News tweet

Neither the flaming Democratic rich man hyperbole about Mitt Romney or the Republican flailing to find a message against Obama, means a thing this far out.

We’ll still likely be left choosing between a gazillionaire and a millionaire, both backed by corporations and Wall Street, which is the contest fitting where American politics stands today.

It’s why Occupy remains the wild card worth watching. Obama can benefit from it, as it nails Mitt Romney if he’s seen through that lens. However, if Romney figures out how to harness the message and use it to market himself as a turn-around expert, you never know what can be sold to the American voter out of options.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The $825,400 Man

By on 31 January 2012

Between July 1 and Dec. 31, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow collected more than $825,400, ending the year with nearly $674,000 cash on hand, according to disclosures filed over night with the Federal Election Commission. – Stephen Colbert’s FEC report: Big money!


Stephen Colbert is the only man anywhere near politics that has political ads worth watching today.

Chuck Todd got bent out of shape about it last week.

“He is making a mockery of the system… Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that feels like he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican.” – Chuck Todd, NBC News

Twisting himself into a knot to be fair and balanced, Todd sounded uncharacteristically dense.

The bookend is reading Mark Halperin’s debate scorecard that isn’t really about the debate, as he admits. Halperin’s grading farce is geared to assessing an evening’s performance with how it could impact the horse race, but always with an eye toward his own access to the politician.

If there’s anything we should all agree upon is that the cesspool of payoffs to candidates through Super PACS locks Americans out of the process, while exposing television viewers in states where the primary season passes to mind-numbing ads of irrefutable charges. The sheer density makes it so.

Stephen Colbert has done more to expose the Super PAC sickness than Obama, Romney, McCain, Feingold, Gingrich or Chuck Todd and Mark Halperon combined.

Looking at Stephen Colbert, watching and listening to him, I’m not at all convinced we’d be worse off with a regular stiff, even a comic, at the helm. They at least might know how unseemly it is to pack your administration with Goldman Sachs cronies while railing about big bank and Wall Street influence.

Some Americans get how totally screwed up our political process is today and they’re laughing at all the insiders through their wallets. In a tough economy that’s quite a message they’re sending.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

The Tea Party Slideth

By on 30 January 2012

Occupy is what’s in today.

The Tea Party has energy, but it’s power is long gone.

That’s why I love the “Take Down the Tea Party Ten” campaign, which I came across just today. It’s sponsored by Credo.

The first six lawmakers targeted by the group are Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Allen West (R-Fla), Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), and Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.). Four more will be chosen by CREDO’s members.

… “We’re taking the traditional super PAC model and turning it on its head — to put power back in the hands of the people, instead of consolidating it in the hands of corporate executives and the ultra-wealthy,” said Becky Bond, president of the CREDO super PAC. “Where Karl Rove and the Koch brothers can use shady money from a few hidden donors to fund a barrage of TV attack ads, this super PAC will empower local voters and our list of 2.5 million activists to build a grassroots campaign that is as hard hitting as it is progressive.

Laura Ingraham admitted on Sunday the Tea Party doesn’t even have that much power today.

“[The Tea Party] don’t have the power that they thought they had, perhaps,” Ingraham said. “I mean, Romney is not a tea party candidate, and they’re talking about 27 percent of the Republican Party that still believe it’s tea party infused. The tea party, they have a lot of energy but you know … more of a moderate view of conservatism seems to get nominated every time. And that’s just a fact. The tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe.” – Laura Ingraham: ‘Tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe’

Maybe that means these “Tea Party 10″ can be taken out, because anyone who wants to weaken the definition of rape shouldn’t be in the U.S. Congress.

Can’t we all at least agree on that?

Speaking of Tea Party, have you noticed that Dana “drop trou” Loesch hasn’t been on CNN since she made the offensive remark? I’m sure we all eagerly await her return, but for now, Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party co-founder, is taking her place and doing a fine job, too.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Police use tear gas, beanbag projectiles and tasers on Oakland, DC occupiers

By on 30 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Oakland and DC were the sites of another round of arrests. Other Occupy sites rallied in support. See here and here.

There’s a sense that these Occupy actions, and city responses, while significant in themselves, are also a sign of things to come. A “Spring Uprising” is one phrase I’ve seen.

Earlier I wrote about steps Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking in preparation for the G8 / NATO Summit in May, which are not that out of line with what’s been happening for years. Protests are restricted to specific, out of sight, places. Protestors are “kettled.” Sometimes the next step is arrests, and that’s included arrests of appropriately credentialed media. All of this was seen in one or both of the DC and Oakland Occupier and police actions over the weekend.

Some background, from TruthOut, published on January 28:

LA Police Department Conducts Joint Exercises with the Military

… The LA Police Department … and the U.S. military conducted joint ‘tactical exercises’ in downtown LA this week. One Black Hawk … and four OH-6 choppers … flew over the city during the exercise. …

‘The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great Los Angeles area,’ the release stated.’ …

Joint military exercises have also been conducted over Boston, Massachusetts and Little Rock, Arkansas over the past six months.

The article, by Dan Bacher, includes analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act, and ties the joint operations to

… the repression of the Occupy movement by police departments throughout the nation.

One other bit of background, for Oakland, from Huffington:

Oakland Police Department Only Weeks Away From Being Placed Into Federal Control

Nearly a decade after the city of Oakland was first threatened with losing control of its police force, Judge Thelton Henderson has severely curtailed the independence of the Oakland Police Department, saying that it could placed under federal receivership as soon as this March.

As best as I can tell from reading multiple descriptions and reports about what happened in Oakland, there were examples of both those among the Occupiers and those among the Oakland PD who broke their own rules. Estimates ranged from 1000 to 2000 protestors, across the events of the day, with about 400 total arrests. The day began with the well publicized – including a letter to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan – efforts to “re-purpose” a building, abandoned for six years, as an Occupied “community center.” After being blocked from doing that, the actions moved into other parts of the city.

For a variety of coverage, read Mother Jones; LA Times; Occupy Oakland; OWS; News Dissector; USA Today; NY Times via TruthOut; Reuters; AP via OWS.

For some Occupiers, who threw objects at the police, broke into City Hall and reportedly engaged in some vandalizing, it was a serious break of the non-violence which has largely defined the movement. For some Oakland Police officers, it was a serious disregard of the rules they’re suppose to follow, reportedly including illegal use of batons and numerous uses of unnecessary force in general – tear gas; smoke grenades and bean bag projectiles among other things.

Mayor Quan, unsurprisingly, strongly supported the actions of police officers, though the following, from the AP article above, is interesting:


Quan blamed the destruction on a small ‘very radical, violent’ splinter group within Occupy Oakland.

A few people – for whatever motives – can use violence to the detriment of many others. And those “few” can be both police and protestor. That the arrest of even credentialed journalists – see Gavin Aronsen’s “Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland” at Mother Jones — add another serious dimension. As do NDAA and some city mayor’s working with Homeland Security and the military.

In DC today, the story continues to unfold, as the National Park Service distributed flyers, stating they will begin to clear the two Occupy camps today. From OpEdNews:

It took just 72 hours for the National Park Service and their Director, Jonathan Jarvis, to cave-in to Republican pressure to remove the Occupy protesters who are camping at Freedom Plaza and McPherson Park. …

Despite Director Jarvis’ statements to Congress that there had been no less than two previous long-term encampments on Washington DC property the National Park Service bowed to Republican pressure. Vehement support for the Occupiers was given by committee Democrats including Eleanor Holmes Norton, whose district these camps are in, and Elija Cummings, the ranking member on the committee.

And yes, I notice the focus in this statement is pro-Democratic, anti-Republican. I don’t generalize from that, however, to conclude Occupy as a whole is signaling a change in its take on electoral politics in general.

Danny Schechter has been covering the Occupy movement from very early on. After the events in Oakland on Saturday, Schechter wrote:

One thing is clear already: if this illegitimate wave of repression is allowed to stand. if the powers-that-be succeed in suppressing or marginalizing this new movement. if people are once again ‘penned in-both literally and symbolically-things will be much worse.

What Occupiers, 99%-ers, and others do; and what mayors, cities and police departments, as well as state and federal governments, decide to do, are obviously central to where things are come the Spring Uprising. Lennon’s words still seem pertinent.

( We’re Here To Help poster via Occupy Pix
Occupy Oakland Kettled via OWS
Lennon Quote via OWS News )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Hillary Never Said ‘All the Way to the Convention!’

By on 30 January 2012

Gingrich is making the case that Romney can’t get a majority at the convention, his small circle of advisers are already eyeing favorable states in March and April, and those close to the former back-bench bomb thrower are testifying to his legendary perseverance. – Newt Gingrich’s long march, by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman

Newt’s clinging to NewsMax. Their “Insider Advantage Poll” is propping him up the day before Florida in hopes that the bottom doesn’t drop out before voting tomorrow. If people start believing Romney is about to walk away with the state, leaners will bolt for Mitt, because no one likes to back a sure loser.

From Quinnipiac:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 – 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow’s election

However, if you’re listening to people on Newt world, none of this will matter. The cry today is all the way to the convention!

There’s no evidence yet that Newt Gingrich can amass 18 million votes, as Hillary did back in 2008. He’s a completely different type of candidate than Clinton, with only one casino banker, while Hillary had legions of fans and supporters. But on he trudges, with the help of Kelly Ann Conway, touting the south as his promised land. The biggest difference between Newt and Hillary is that never once was there any indication whatsoever that she would have taken her fight to the convention floor. It was never going to happen, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, getting vilified by Hillary fans for giving sound analysis that turned out to be true.

Of course, the cable yakkers tried hard to whip up a frenzy saying otherwise, as I recount in my book The Hillary Effect, with even the esteemed Rachel Maddow falling for this line, though she was hardly alone.

Newt Gingrich’s primary cry the day before Florida, however, is exactly that, threatening to start a war inside the Republican Party on the floor in Tampa.

“We have no evidence yet that Romney anywhere is coming close to getting the majority and I think when you take all of the non-Romney votes, it’s very likely that the convention will be a non-Romney majority and maybe a very substantial one. My job is to convert that into a pro-Gingrich majority.” – Newt Gingrich, via the Wall Street Journal

Make my year.

In the interim, Gingrich is spewing Adelson talking points to Jewish Floridians: “[Mitt Romney] eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.”

Wrenching voters out of their comfort zone one inflammatory statement at a time.

If the projected polling today is correct and Romney wins big in Florida, Newt’s viability will rest in Sheldon Adelson’s hands, because it’s clear the Republican establishment isn’t going to help and neither are their bankers.

What if Adelson folds? Newt’s never run a grass roots campaign in his life. He’s learning this anti-establishment schtick as he goes along. It’s just not clear whether his ego can survive being second to Santorum and Ron Paul.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Sheldon Adelson Couldn’t Buy Newt Florida

By on 30 January 2012

If you wanted to know the state of Newt Gingrich’s campaign right now all you had to do was watch Fred Thompson on Meet the Press on Sunday. With his hair slicked back and wisps of uncut frizz flipping out in the back, Thompson delivered his lines haltingly and with his head bowed, while focusing downward as he talked. I won’t get into the fantasy Thompson floated that if Republicans had held out during the government shutdown in the mid-90s they’d have… er, won. It was a tour de force whine from camp Gingrich about how big bad Mitt had played too dirty. Hypocrisy unlimited, the bellyaching stems from the reality that Newt can’t match Mitt’s money, because if he could he’d be doing the same thing. Anybody doubt that fact?

Favorite recent headline: Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida, an article by John Heilimann.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a weekend of trailing the former speaker to a series of events along the I-4 corridor, there was just no escaping that a campaign that was flying high (and even into outer space) ten days ago has now come crashing back to earth. At what was billed as a Hispanic town hall meeting at another church yesterday in Orlando, Gingrich was greeted by row after row of empty pews and maybe 40 voters in attendance. For a full hour after the scheduled starting time, Gingrich and his wife, Callista, sat outside, cloistered in his campaign bus — possibly sulking, possibly fuming at his campaign’s horrid advance work, and surely praying that a few more souls would show up. When Gingrich finally entered the building, it was announced that the event was a town hall no more; the candidate would speak briefly, then take pictures with the scant few who’d turned up. And “briefly” was an understatement: Standing behind a Lucite lectern, Gingrich talked for a bare eight minutes and eleven seconds, looking deflated and exhausted. By no small margin, it was the worst and saddest campaign event that I have witnessed in this presidential cycle.

Now all the talk in the political world is about how badly Newt Gingrich could get beat tomorrow, with everyone anticipating a large margin win by Mitt Romney.

A lot of Republicans are hoping for it and an end to the savage bloodletting, as well as the debates. Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press Sunday that they’ve got to end. Chris Wallace said the debates were “ridiculous,” “insane,” and “stupid” recently on a radio show. The next one is at the end of February, which will be a very long month for Newt Gingrich.

Sheldon Adelson bought Newt Gingrich South Carolina. What he’s gotten for his money is another story. It’s about Israel and Iran, but having a candidate in the race that can define the debate rightward where the Middle East is concerned.

RT @RyanLizza: Newt warning Iranians could easily blow up Jacksonville with nuclear weapon (via boat).

I retweeted the above to make the point. You may remember Gingrich saying the Palestinian people were “invented.”

We should all be thankful Mitt Romney’s rich, organized and that his campaign is not going to take their foot off Gingrich’s throat again.

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” – Zeke Miller, BuzzFeed

There’s no comfort when you look at Mitt Romney where the Middle East is concerned either. To say foreign policy isn’t his forte is an understatement. So with neoconservatives and John Bolton in the background, with Newt in cahoots with Adelson, it’s all very weirdly counterproductive for Israel and for the U.S. on the right.

Mr. Adelson and his wife were evidently cynical enough to believe that American Jews living in Florida would buy Newt’s message. It doesn’t look like it’s selling. The question is whether Adelson will keep the money flowing if Gingrich loses big in Florida, because where this race heads next depends on it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

By on 29 January 2012

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be

By on 28 January 2012



Sarah Palin rose to power in Alaska by taking on Republicans in her own state on ethics. It’s the very thing Tom Brokaw is talking about regarding Newt Gingrich in the Romney ad above, though Brokaw, and NBC are protesting, so I have no idea if the video will be available by the time you read this. The Romney hashtag for it is #Newtorious.

You don’t need partisan rhetoric or his scandals to fillet Newt Gingrich.

“They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that’s old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all this does, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media…” – Sarah Palin: Newt Gingrich’s secret weapon

If Sarah Palin were backing Rick Santorum she’d have some credibility, but by defending Newt Gingrich she reveals the hypocrisy at her core.

Stop and print the section in bold above. Sarah Palin is correct on this one point. But hearing Palin whine about the “politics of personal destruction” when she’s a master of it is a bit much.

Sarah Palin’s shift to propping up an ethics-challenged hypocrite like Newt Gingrich directly relates to her ineffectiveness with the wider public and why she can’t wage a successful run for president. After amassing incredible power in 2010, which I chronicled fairly on this site, at the Huffington Post and in my book, she’s squandered it with anyone but her faithful.

Newt’s problem is that Independents won’t go near him.

One reason Romney has been outperforming Gingrich in hypothetical match-ups against President Obama is due to independents. Now, both main Republicans are at a disadvantage. [...] For his part, Gingrich runs solidly the other way among these middle-of-the-roaders, at 20 percent positive, 58 percent negative. Romney, whom moderates rated about evenly throughout the fall and into early January, are now about 2 to 1 negative: 27 percent hold favorable views, 52 percent negative ones. – Washington Post

There are a lot of things that can be said and argued about Mitt Romney, starting with his austerity message, which is a killer for our economy. He’s been an awful candidate so far and is as unlikable as any candidate in recent memory, Democratic or Republican. His wealth in an Occupy era makes him a perfect whipping boy for Pres. Obama and the Democrats. However, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in his long business or political careers that points to ethics violations or that he was ineffective in his endeavors, both of which dog Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin has chosen to play defender of Newt Gingrich, the exact type of Republican she would have railed against once upon a time in Alaska, all so she can toot her Tea Party horn in the hopes of regaining relevancy and keeping the cash rolling in.

Hey, nothing wrong with that at all. Ann Coulter’s been doing successfully for years.

What’s convenient is the thousands of Palin fans who continue to help her, because she wouldn’t be newsworthy without them. She owes them everything, but she owes Newt, too.

Without Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin couldn’t stoke up the audience for her keynote CPAC speech next month.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

By on 28 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Ever put a fortune into a company and then not know it?

In the CNN Thursday debate, Mitt Romney claimed he had no idea of his investment involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When confronted by Newt Gingrich over the fact that Romney poured 100s of thousands into a mutual fund that held Freddie and Fannie debt notes, among other government entities, Romney replied that he had no knowledge, because his money is in a blind trust.

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

Gingrich is about to go up with a brutal ad deconstructing the situation. Script:

Governor Mike Huckabee:

“If a man’s dishonest to get a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

Voice-over:

“What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election?”

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

“Romney said he has always voted Republican when he had the opportunity.”

“But in the 1992 Massachusetts Primary Romney had the chance to vote for George H.W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, but he voted for a liberal Democrat instead.”

Romney said his investments in Fannie and Freddie were in a blind trust.

But, as reported in the National Journal, Romney earned tens of thousands of dollars from investments NOT in a blind trust… …

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

The Miami Herald also has fact checked and it turns out Romney has folks who worked as consultants and lobbyists for the mortgage giants on his campaign team right now:

The Associated Press and Daily Caller report that top Romney advisers and surrogates were paid lobbyists and consultants for Freddie Mac and other interests in the thick of the housing crisis.

Among the consultant-lobbyists on Romney’s team: Former Rep. Susan Molinari and Vin Weber.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has responded to the allegation made by Gingrich. From the Boston Globe, the paper of record on all things Mitt:

The trustee who manages Romney’s money said those investments were made through a charitable trust “operated on a totally blind basis’’ that Romney did not control. He also said that the investment related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-public agencies that many conservatives blame for the housing crisis, has been sold.

“This investment, which has been sold, was not known to Governor Romney,’’ Brad Malt said in a statement. Although Romney’s financial disclosure forms do not list it as such, Malt said the fund was held within a charitable trust and has been managed “on a totally blind basis since 2002.’’

Mitt Romney in 1994: “The blind trust is an age old ruse.” See the video below from BuzzFeed.


Taylor Marsh contributed to this post.
Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Queer Talk: Mayors for Marriage Equality

By on 28 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Freedom to Marry, an organization working for marriage equality, recently announced a new campaign: Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. About 100 mayors – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – have signed on. The campaign is designed to reflect growing support for marriage equality, and put some pressure on others to join in the efforts.

From Chris Johnson, at Washington Blade:

Around 15 members of the coalition … spoke at a news conference at the Capital Hilton during the 89th Winter Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors about the importance of allowing gay couples to marry.

The coalition is chaired by Michael Bloomberg (New York City); Thomas M. Menino (Boston); Annise Parker (Houston); Jerry Sanders (San Diego) and Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles). It includes mayors of Lima, OH; Kalamazoo, MI; Kansas City, MO; Eugene, OR, and Franklinton, NC. Rahm Emanuel recently added Chicago to the list.

It doesn’t include Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings. Dallas is the largest city whose mayor hasn’t signed the pledge. GetEQUAL planned last night’s (January 27) rally outside Dallas City Hall, and according to the Dallas Voice, Rawlings is scheduled today to meet with 20-25 LGBT leaders, who said

… they’ve been very alarmed by the language and tone Rawlings has used in defending his decision not to sign the pledge in the media.

Most recently, on Wednesday, Rawlings told WFAA-TV that the marriage pledge … was an example of ‘getting off track’ and that the issue of marriage equality is not ‘relevant to the lion’s share of the citizens of Dallas.’

‘Sadly, I think the more he talks about this in the press, the more he digs in as completely out of touch,’ said Patti Fink, president of the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

There’s still a lot of that “out of touch-ness” around, unfortunately, though it continues to shrink. The stress on the bipartisan support would be important at any point, but coming in the midst of 2012 election rhetoric, it’s particularly significant. From the coalition of mayor’s:

We are honored to lead this bipartisan group of mayors who support ending marriage discrimination at all levels of government. While we will each have different strategies for pursuing that end, we all agree on the goal: securing the freedom to marry and upholding equal rights for all citizens.

All of which, of course, raises questions about President Obama, and where he is in his “evolving” position on marriage equality. I’m among those who don’t think he’ll announce he’s completed the process before November.

From WSJ:

When he ran for president in 2008, Mr. Obama opposed to gay and lesbian marriages. He has said the matter should be decided by each state—knowing that most states have banned the marriages. But he has also spoken warmly about those states that have legalized same-sex marriage … . He also directed his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal benefits for same-sex unions. The president has said his own views on marriage are evolving, leading many on both sides of the issues to conclude that he now supports marriage rights but is holding back for political reasons.

Maybe Mayor Rawlings, and President Obama, would be helped along by reading the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry statement, and the personal comments provided by some. Two examples, from the Washington Blade:

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who two years ago became the first openly lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city, talked about her own life experience as a reason for why same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Parker said she and her partner, Kathy Hubbard, on Monday celebrated their 21st anniversary. She also noted her 35-year-old son, whom she said was 16 and living on the Houston streets when they adopted him because he had been thrown by his family. Parker also said her two adopted daughters, who are now 16 and 21, had previously spent five years in foster care ‘with very few prospects of a loving, stable home.’

‘We had to navigate insurance challenges and custody challenges in the school districts,’ Parker said. ‘One simple thing would have made tremendous difference in the lives of my family and, truly, the lives of millions of Americans, and that is access to the rights and privileges of marriage.’

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, was also among those who appeared at the news conference to voice his support from marriage.

In 2007, Sanders made headlines when he reversed his position on marriage equality before signing a City Council resolution intended to overturn the city’s ban on same-sex marriage. The mayor gave a tearful speech in which he said he couldn’t tell his daughter Lisa that her same-sex relationship wasn’t as important as that of straight couple.

… ‘Fairness means giving people the same rights and treating them the same as everyone else,’ Sanders said. ‘There’s no such thing as fair enough; it’s either fair, or it’s not.’

I think a lot of people would agree with that. Including, I’d guess, Mildred Loving. I strongly encourage you to check out this story at Yahoo, “Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time.” It’s about Mildred and Richard Loving, whose 1958 marriage eventually resulted in a 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down laws which banned interracial marriage.

On the 40th anniversary of the ruling, (Mildred) Loving issued a statement that read, ‘I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life.’

I’ll never understand why some people treat equality as if there was only so much to go around.

(Freedom To Marry Logo via Freedom To Marry
Mayors For Marriage photo via Freedm to Marry)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }