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

Arne Duncan Joins V.P. Biden, Comes Out in Support of Same Sex Marriage

Look, I am Vice President of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that. – V.P. Joe Biden on Meet the Press

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA “evolve already”?

Today, Education Secretary Arnie Duncan joined Biden.

Mark Halperin asked Duncan on “Morning Joe” if he thought same sex men and women should be able to get legally married in the United States. Duncan’s simply reply: “Yes, I do.”

It comes after V.P. Joe Biden, a devout Catholic, made news on “Meet the Press” yesterday.

The Catholic Church will not approve, but will they deny Biden communion like one diocese threatened to do to John Kerry, because of his stance on women’s individual freedoms?

Looks like the Catholic League’s going to be very busy this year. Their boycott of Jon Stewart hasn’t gone so well, so maybe revving up a bigot campaign over The Gays might invigorate them.

Mitt Romney and the Republicans are against marriage equality, as well as women’s individual freedoms, while newly crowned Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson sides with equality for all, as do most Democrats.

We’re still waiting for Pres. Obama to get off the fence.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Gary Johnson, More Consistent Libertarian than Ron Paul, Wins Nomination

“Individual choice and responsibility have been eroded by our over-reaching government. A woman’s right to choose is no exception. The decision to end a pregnancy is one of the most difficult a woman can face. I believe that choice is hers alone to make.” – Gary Johnson

LIBERTARIAN GARY JOHNSON won his party’s nomination this weekend. He’s a lot more consistent when it comes to Libertarian principles than Ron Paul, whose philosophy falls apart on women’s individual freedoms, because Paul thinks freedom is just for men, like most Republicans and even some Democrats.

Johnson’s vice presidential running mate is Judge Jim Gray, who speaks about the drug war in the video below [h/t reason]. Gray makes more sense than the Democrats and Republicans combined on this subject. “Regulate it, control it, tax it,” says Judge Gray, also talking about “the Holland effect.”

Republican voters are too ignorant about the drug war to begin to grasp his points, with Democrats too afraid they won’t be centrist enough to win if they actually propose a solution.

Johnson lashed out at the intolerance of Republicans, which the recent disgrace of Mitt Romney’s handling of Richard Grenell highlights perfectly.

“I believe the majority of americans are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant,” Johnson told BuzzFeed in a phone interview. “I believe the majority of Americans could care less about whether or not there is a gay individual working in the Romney campaign.” Romney’s newly hired foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell was openly gay, a fact that raised the ire of social conservatives, whose reaction resulted in Grenell’s leaving the campaign. “It speaks volumes to the intolerance that continues to be present in the Republican Party,” Johnson said. He said he doesn’t attach that intolerance to the majority of Republicans but to “the activists driving that agenda.”Buzzfeed

How many state ballots they can get on and whether they can compete remains their biggest challenge, but that’s the case for anyone outside Democrats and Republicans. The other reality is most people still can’t get out of the either-or choice to give an outsider a chance.

This is where the media comes in.

Traditional and new media, including and cable networks, need to open the playing field to other parties, covering Johnson and others, but that will only happen if people demand it. Debates should expand to also include Gary Johnson, but again, the American people would have to show an interest, which can’t happen if they don’t get press, which is where social media and the web comes in. It’s the first step in challenging the current political landscape that’s going to take a very long time to change.

Ron Paul voters could consider Johnson, because his platform is Paulesque, but also includes the principle that women deserve to be as free as men.

What a 21st century concept.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Michael Mukasey Latest Republican to Make a Fool of Himself Over Obama OBL Call

Scores of pages of al Qaeda documents seized in last year’s U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden were released Thursday. They comprise 175 pages in the original Arabic of letters and drafts from bin Laden and other key al Qaeda figures, including the American Adam Gadahn and Abu Yahya al-Libi. – The Osama bin Laden documents



REPUBLICAN SCRAMBLING BEGAN the moment the reelection ad for Pres. Obama, narrated by former Pres. Bill Clinton, surfaced, but has now reached epic levels with Republicans using former attorney general Michael Mukasey’s Breitbartesque Wall Street Journal op-ed from April 30th. That Sean Hannity is using the propaganda is predictable, but that Mukasey would stoop to these levels by assuming one C.I.A. memorandum tells the story is pretty remarkable and close to professional irresponsibility.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s.

This is the exact same case made by a Breitbart column I cited.

Mukasey went on:

Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

Again, Mukasey assumes this from one singular memo? Unfortunately, as the CNN story from the top of this column reveals, which came on May 3rd, he was not only wrong, but made a fool of himself by deciding to play politics himself when he also didn’t know the full extent of what was retrieved.

The Christian Science Monitor also reported on the bin Laden papers.

People can argue about whether a political ad on the OBL operation and its success is “spiking the football,” but what cannot be denied is that if Republicans were in Obama’s position they’d ram it down Democratic throats. What also cannot be argued is that Pres. Obama took huge risks in going into Pakistan without permission, something Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden criticized him for suggesting when they were all running for president in ’08.

Mitt Romney can cite Jimmy Carter in a clearly prepared line that scores with his base, but there’s still no evidence whatsoever that he’d have proceeded with the raid inside Pakistan.

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” – Mitt Romney, 2008 campaign

You can argue Romney’s 2008 statement doesn’t preclude a daring call to send SEAL Team Six into Pakistan unannounced, but it does seem to judge national security issues on economic terms alone, not considering the blood the mission might have “cost” is equally important.

I say this also because of his statement on Chen Guangcheng, with Romney popping off when he obviously didn’t have enough facts, because few did. His injudicious politicizing of national security matters as a presidential candidate, both in 2008 and today, reveals a lack of caution and also shows he’s trying to act like he knows what he’s talking about instead of being confident enough to say, “I’m not in the position to have enough classified intelligence to make the decision from here, but the murderer responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice.”

Mayor Giuliani didn’t hesitate to utilize 9/11, George W. Bush pictured 9/11 in 2004 reelect ads, and just this week Mitt Romney had lunch at Engine 24/ladder 5 firehouse that lost 11 men on that day.

This closes the case on political opportunism.

Considering Romney was nowhere in leadership on 9/11, but Pres. Obama took a lot of risks and performed his commander in chief duties with expertise on OBL, the case is closed when comparing the two as well. Romney would be wise not to try to insert himself on this front, but being a Republican he can’t help himself.

From Mukasey to Romney, Republicans are tripping over themselves to try to beat Obama at the national security game, which they owned from Vietnam until the disastrous Iraq war. That Obama is offering a solid chance for Democrats to out tough Republicans, I’d say leaning too far on the hawk side, must be infuriating to the right, but they need to get over themselves, because right now they’re making fools of themselves.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Queer Talk: Right Winger Says Romney is ‘Maneuverable’

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

Team Romney is still fairly new to the general campaigning mode. Missteps are inevitable. The Richard Grenell story shows that. First, they seemed to think putting an “openly gay” man in a high profile position (foreign policy), a man well known for his support of marriage equality, wasn’t going to be a problem. It shouldn’t be, but given the just concluded round of Bachmann / Cain / Perry / Santorum / Gingrich rightwing rhetoric, how the Romney campaign could have been surprised at the onslaught from Bryan Fischer, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, etc, is amazing.

Secondly, having Grenell help organize Romney’s first big foreign policy moment, via a phone conference with international news outlets, but then doing this : (via Think Progress):

‘Ric,’ said Alex Wong, a policy aide, ‘the campaign has requested that you not speak on this call.’ Mr. Wong added, ‘It’s best to lay low for now.’

“The campaign” has such a safe, don’t-blame-anyone-in-particular sound to it. Not expecting repercussions to the “lay low” directions is difficult to understand.

Third, when it became clear Grenell wasn’t going to go along with such things, “the campaign” tried to keep him onboard (but very quietly), and then said he really hadn’t officially started his job, and so really didn’t resign … thinking this would satisfy anyone – Grenell, his supporters or his detractors – is another stumble.

How could they think they could appoint an “openly gay” man, and this would be 1) good enough to get some moderate votes, but 2) small enough not to lose “social conservative” votes? When the opposition quickly escalated, they never came out in “stand our ground” support of Romney’s choice. Maybe that’s because they really aren’t sure what their ground is.

This is not what leadership looks like. Although, it does look very familiar. There’s something about walking the line, trying to please disparate voting blocs, abandoning appointees or nominees when things start heating up, and taking a cautious, incremental approach in efforts to avoid controversy … that’s all very familiar, in a bipartisan kind of way.

The same Think Progress report includes this:

‘It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay,’ an anonymous ‘Republican told the Times. ‘They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right.’

That’s wanting to have it both ways, but “the campaign” really should know that isn’t how the “religious right” plays the game.

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer declared a “huge victory,” and took the obvious next step, as reported at Right Wing Watch. Fischer said

… that since Romney is partial to ‘political convenience’ over ‘political conviction,’ conservatives must keep up the pressure on him ‘since the governor has demonstrated in the Grenell affair that he is maneuverable.’

Being perceived as “maneuverable” surely doesn’t make “the campaign” happy. From the same piece, a response from “conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd,” who said

… you can’t be the party of freedom and the Constitution if you’re not going to understand that the Constitution enshrines the First Amendment and not gay rights.

It’s extreme, but this general view of “the homosexuals” exists alongside “woman as womb” and labeling persons as “illegals.” These views still manage to scare candidates on Left and Right. Romney just gave them another reason to insist on their way. At Catholic Bandita:

It’s not Grenell’s ‘sexual orientation’ that we conservatives have a problem with. It’s that he is public about it and that he advocates for policy that threatens religious freedom. This should not be a difficult concept for a presidential candidate to understand. ‘Gay rights’ and religious freedom do clash.

Classic arguments: “I don’t care what you do in the bedroom as long as you don’t try to shove it down my throat,” meaning, “as long as you don’t demand equality,” in marriage or anything else.

But what about those Republicans who are not of this mindset? Andrew Sullivan writes:

Romneyites are correct when they say they tried to talk (Grenell) out of (resigning). But they kept and keep their views quiet. The gay-inclusive elements in the elites simply do not have the balls to tackle the religious right. And this is particularly true of Romney, as this case now proves. The Christianists gave Bush a pass on social issues because of his born-again Christianity. They trust Mormon Romney not an inch. And this week demonstrates without any doubt that Romney will therefore not be able to deviate from their wishes an iota.

Mitt Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN, but as Igor Volsky writes, Fehrnstrom

… failed to harshly criticize conservative right wing activists who had derided the aide as a ‘homosexual activist’ … .

Instead … Fehrnstrom found false equivalency between ‘voices of intolerance’ in both political parties … .

At HuffPo Jon Ward notes that the Romney campaign had distributed statements in defense of Grenell.

But the Romney campaign did not blast the statements out to its entire email list but instead provided them to reporters upon request. This added up to a more passive defense of Grenell than an active one.

Prejudice is personal, but always includes the generalized “other.” You’re “less than,” you don’t meet the standards and norms imposed from those who think they’re in positions to make such judgments. Politically, I disagree with Mr. Grenell in significant ways. And I dislike what, to me, are the sexist remarks he’s made. But I abhor the attacks from Fischer and company, and while not surprised at Romney’s “passive defense,” find it as revealing as such cautious, fearful actions always are.

Meanwhile, such “maneuverability” provides cover for timid Democrats, who really don’t have to do much to look better.

(Romney Pro Gay Flyer, unedited, via Think Progress)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Jobs Numbers Reveal 24.9% Unemployment Among Teens

In April, teenagers had a 24.9 percent unemployment rate, compared with a 7.5 percent for adult men and 7.4 percent among adult women. – ABC News

Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981

PARTISANS, start your engines, though no one can spin the teen unemployment numbers, which are disastrous.

The unemployment rate is down to 8.1%.

Only 115,000 jobs were added.

There’s also reports revealing large numbers of people have left the workforce, revealing the reason behind lower unemployment number, which is reportedly the lowest since 1981.

You’re not going to change that with the Ryan plan, which is Mitt Romney’s biggest problem. Just ask David Cameron how well austerity has worked for him and you get the nut of just how disastrous Paul Ryan has been politically for Republicans.

With Chuck Todd this morning, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said that unemployment insurance running out for older Americans means these people are likely to retire, causing part of the exodus from the workforce. Zandi said manufacturing is going “great guns” and, for what it’s worth, he predicted that by the end of the year unemployment would be “definitively below 8%.”

The psychological impact of unemployment dipping below 8% or the mere fact it’s going in the right direction is very good news for Obama’s reelection chances, while giving Romney a real problem spinning can’t counter. When this subject hits the fall presidential debates it will make it even harder for voters to take a chance on Republicans.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Veterans for a Strong America Release Swiftboat Ad Attacking Obama on OBL



Karl Rove tweeted his approval.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Obama’s Composite Girlfriend Creates Rip van Winkle Awakening

The success of “Dreams” has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has been the foundation of his political success. But Maraniss’s biography threatens that narrative by questioning it: Was Obama’s journey entirely spiritual and intellectual? Or was it also grounded in the lower realms of ambition and calculation?The dangerous new Obama book, by Glenn Thrush and Dylan Byers

BACK IN 2007, into very early 2008, when the national press was agog about Barack Obama, I wrote about him in a manner that was honest and highly doubting that the myth matched what I’d been told by Chicagoans, as well as what I’d dug up and read about the man who was just another ruthless politician. But politics is a dirty game and there isn’t one person who reaches Obama’s heights that doesn’t get into the mud, which was certainly the case in the Democratic primaries of 2007, which I recount in my book The Hillary Effect.

The Obama camp went nuclear on Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, which I’ve defended, as they also did on Confidence Men by Ron Suskind, also a trove of revealing facts. So you can bet they’ve got a corner of their reelection war room ready for David Marinass’s new book Barack Obama: The Story, to be published in June by Simon & Schuster.

However, let’s begin with what Barack Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father, before the reader gets to the first page:

“For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people, I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of privacy.” [Business Insider]

No one can get into Mr. Obama’s mind way back when he was writing his memoir, but having written about a boyfriend in my current book I’ll admit I can’t relate to the composite choice. There are many ways to protect people, with a composite obviously coming with motive on crafting a story that lives beyond facts and truth. It’s not in any way necessarily nefarious, dishonest or manipulative. However, considering Barack Obama’s healthy ambition it’s clear there was intent to create a narrative that suited the main character’s purpose. Again, nothing wrong with that either, but the tale does lie beyond fact. That he admits this up front is important. Why he decided to take that road, however, is too.

It is excerpted in Vanity Fair:

In Dreams from My Father, Obama chose to emphasize a racial chasm that unavoidably separated him from the woman he described as his New York girlfriend.

One night I took her to see a new play by a black playwright. It was a very angry play, but very funny. Typical black American humor. The audience was mostly black, and everybody was laughing and clapping and hollering like they were in church. After the play was over, my friend started talking about why black people were so angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering—nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said—and she said that’s different, and I said it wasn’t, and she said that anger was just a dead end. We had a big fight, right in front of the theater. When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough.

None of this happened with Genevieve. She remembered going to the theater only once with Barack, and it was not to see a work by a black playwright. When asked about this decades later, during a White House interview, Obama acknowledged that the scene did not happen with Genevieve. “It is an incident that happened,” he said. But not with her. He would not be more specific, but the likelihood is that it happened later, when he lived in Chicago. “That was not her,” he said. “That was an example of compression I was very sensitive in my book not to write about my girlfriends, partly out of respect for them. So that was a consideration. I thought that [the anecdote involving the reaction of a white girlfriend to the angry black play] was a useful theme to make about sort of the interactions that I had in the relationships with white girlfriends. And so, that occupies, what, two paragraphs in the book? My attitude was it would be dishonest for me not to touch on that at all … so that was an example of sort of editorially how do I figure that out?”

An over exercised story in The Atlantic makes good points on Rush Limbaugh and the corrections made by Politico. But the complaining about Obama and “vetting” is laughable.

Politico does get one thing correct and that is the Marinass book is potentially dangerous, because people don’t think of Barack Obama the way they did in 2008. No politician can withstand the pedestal and political god treatment, whether it’s John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton or, yes, even Barack Obama.

All along David Axelrod and David Plouffe portrayed Barack Obama as beyond your average politician. Michelle Obama has added to this myth exponentially, as has Valerie Jarrett and others around the President, because as the first African American president they’ve laid on him, with Obama accepting the charge, that he’s special, different and, as Oprah said, “The One.”

Through all my writing, including in my book, which focuses on the press’s complicity in allowing the myth of Obama to take hold as a political foundation, I’ve endeavored to portray Barack Obama as he is, which began through what I’d learned from digging around as much as my independent pocketbook would allow, back when the traditional and new media press, as well as cable, were laying hands on him. It looks like the media is finally deciding to consider that Barack Obama is indeed another politician who utilized his life story to craft a narrative that would sell.

Ask Marco Rubio how important a political narrative is in American politics.

We’re a Hollywood nation, so we love a good story and when someone tries to add truth to the mix that tarnishes the tale they end up paying for it in any number of ways.

But to hear the media whine about Barack Obama’s story is a bit much. This is the same national and new media I indict in my book, because of their clear bias and careless coverage throughout 2007-2008, while ignoring important clues, not to mention what they chose to focus on regarding Hillary Clinton, a dramatic political and journalistic tale that goes back 20 years. Ryan Lizza’s article in The New Yorker further proved I’d been on to something from the start.

Now the right’s going nuclear because it will help their fight to get Mitt Romney in the White House. Utilizing Obama’s fall from perfection, the media’s Rip van Winkle awakening to stir up a story in a dizzyingly boring election year, as well as the people’s nervousness about everything, Republicans have seized on the Marinass narrative.

Team Obama’s in for a bruising battle, because now everyone knows he’s not “The One.” No one is.


CORRECTION: The Maranass book will be out in June, not this month as originally stated, and has been corrected above.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

When Party Loyalty Rules the Ballot Box

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

Voting party over policy is a major dynamic in our electoral system, present in both Republican and Democratic sides of the Duopoly. Making loyalty to a party, or person, the basis for voting (and then for governing) is one of the most significant factors in keeping us stuck in our limiting either / or choices.

On May 1, Obama released the “Presidential Proclamation – Loyalty Day, 2012.” It’s what WH occupants do, so nothing unique to him, even though the Day is largely unknown. What it represents, though, is essential to the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy’s successful restriction of our options. The May Day actions are over, but the Loyalty Day framing is present, every day, and every election.

Renaming, and rebranding, May Day to “Loyalty Day” was done in 1958, by Congress, then signed by Eisenhower the next year. I wrote about this here. That rebranding – or to put it another way, that effort to change the subject – isn’t Obama’s doing. But the proclamation he issued – as May Day actions organized by Occupy, labor unions, immigration advocates, students and more were happening – is a good, or bad, illustration of the marketing that helps maintain the gap that exists between Electeds, Elites, 1%-ers – however you refer to them – and the rest of us. A focus on “loyalty” to the Constitution and our “proud heritage” isn’t bad in itself. But when “loyalty” is defined by those Electeds, Elites and 1%-ers in ways meant to benefit the definers, there’s a problem.

The proclamation is a familiar jumble of patriotic, feel good words that mostly serve as a distraction, a way to change an unpleasant (to the Electeds and Elites) subject insisted on by, in this case, people who focused on May Day concerns. We aren’t supposed to think, we’re supposed to pat ourselves and each other on the back for being “loyal.” And “loyal” citizens don’t rock the Two Party boat, and certainly don’t take May Day type concerns seriously. Because then, you’d be a communist or a socialist, kind of like using “Forward” as a campaign slogan is communist or socialist.

The Presidential Proclamation – Loyalty Day, 2012 follows. (All bolding is mine, indicating what might be tenuously related to 2012 realities for the 99%).

More than two centuries ago, our Founders laid out a charter that assured the rule of law and the rights of man. Through times of tranquility and the throes of change, the Constitution has always guided our course toward fulfilling that most noble promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve the chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. America has carried on not only for the skill or vision of history’s celebrated figures, but also for the generations who have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents. On Loyalty Day, we reflect on that proud heritage and press on in the long journey toward prosperity for all.

In the years since our Constitution was penned and ratified, Americans have moved our Nation forward by embracing a commitment to each other, to the fundamental principles that unite us, and to the future we share. We weathered the storms of civil war and segregation, of conflicts that spanned continents. We overcame threats from within and without – from the specter of fascism abroad to the bitter injustice of disenfranchisement at home. We upheld the spirit of service at the core of our democracy, and we widened the circle of opportunity not just for a privileged few, but for the ambitious many. Time and again, men and women achieved what seemed impossible by joining imagination to common purpose and necessity to courage. That legacy still burns brightly, and the ideals it embodies remain a light to all the world.

Countless Americans demonstrate that same dedication to country today. It endures in the hearts of all who put their lives on the line to defend the land they love, just as it moves millions to improve their communities through volunteerism and civic participation. Their actions help ensure prosperity for this generation and those yet to come, and they honor the immutable truths enshrined in our Nation’s founding texts. On Loyalty Day, we rededicate ourselves to the common good, to the cornerstones of liberty, equality, and justice, and to the unending pursuit of a more perfect Union.

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

BARACK OBAMA

I’m not demeaning displaying the flag and pledging allegiance to the Republic. But if that’s all that happens on Loyalty Day and every other day, then we really, really need to remember May Day, and keep the 99% efforts going into the days and weeks and months, and yes, years, ahead. And very importantly, we need to pay attention to who’s claiming, and defining, our “loyalty.”

(Puppet graphic via Occupy Wall Street)

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Queer Talk: Romney’s ‘Openly Gay’ Foreign Policy Spokesman Resigns

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

The Washington Post broke the story yesterday with Jennifer Rubin’s piece, Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives. Grenell had served in the George W. Bush administration as communications director for the U.S. representative to the United Nations. His appointment to the Romney campaign was announced on April 19 (the same day the Romney campaign announced he’d be the commencement speaker at Liberty University). The “anti-gay conservatives” began efforts to oust him almost immediately.

They succeeded. Or Romney failed. Or a combination of both. The questions now are about what this says about Romney, the Republican Party, and who’s running the GOP show.

From the WaPo piece:

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.

In a statement … Grenell says:

‘I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign … . While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures … my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues .. . I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.’

Claiming it’s a “non-issue” really doesn’t work. As Rubin notes, the National Review and Daily Caller “reflected the uproar by some social conservatives” regarding Grenell, even though Grenell also created a stir on the Left, too. Paul Schindler, at Gay City News:

Conservatives’ mistrust of Grenell is curious given the ex-spokesman’s willingness to take on prominent LGBT progressives. In a tweet earlier this year, he went after the woman who is television news’ best-known lesbian.

‘Rachel Maddow needs to take a breath and put on a necklace,’ his Twitter account, @RichardGrenell, read on January 26.

Rubin notes that the pressure from “social conservatives” and the “reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman … left Grenell essentially with no job.” She also reports that “senior officials from the Romney campaign,” along with “respected Republicans” attempted to persuade Grenell not to resign.

Among the first and biggest critics of Romney’s appointment of Grenell was Bryan Fischer at American Family Association, who routinely talks about “vicious, mean-spirited homosexuals.” Learning of Grenell’s resignation, Fischer claimed a victory. From Right Wing Watch:

It was just last week that Bryan Fischer was declaring that if Mitt Romney wants to win in November, he’d ‘better start listening to me.’…

… during the second hour of Fischer’s daily radio broadcast, the news broke the Grenell had in fact resigned from the campaign and Fischer … declar(ed) it a ‘huge win’ for the Religious Right because it means that they have forced Romney to back down and taught him that he cannot do anything like this again … .

How much credit Fischer and like-minded GOP-ers contributed to Grenell’s resignation is a very important question, of course. As Aravosis puts it:

This is the part where Romney either says something, or comes off as a pushover. Guess which one he’ll do.

Ron Hill at Republicans 4 Freedom has a nice round-up of “What People are Saying About Romney’s Gay Aid’s Resignation,” including this:

Steve Clemons, Washington Editor at Large, The Atlantic (writing on HuffPO)

‘Allowing Grenell to resign … just fuels the confidence and status of bigots who undermine big tent, inclusive democracy.’

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Beast:

‘If opposition to marriage equality is a litmus test for gay inclusion in the Romney campaign and administration, then there will be scarcely a single openly gay person willing to sign up to play any part in it. It has come to this.

Okay, there are significant differences, but there’s no way Obama’s infamous “evolving” view of marriage equality can be avoided at this point, or the willingness of some “gay persons” to “play a part in” his administration. But back to Schindler, who points out the “litmus test” reality:

DailyCaller.com … challenged New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s suitability as Romney’s running mate, citing his appointment of Bruce Harris, an openly gay Republican, to the State Supreme Court.

The statement from Log Cabin Republicans seems to give Romney a pass, and includes asserting Grenell was “hounded by the far right and far left.”

HRC, of course, has a different perspective:

Mitt Romney capitulating to the demands of extremist anti-gay groups is nothing new.

One of the best analyses I’ve read is from Ron Hill in What Richard Grenell’s Resignation Means For Mitt Romney and the GOP:

The real loser in the Richard Grenell fiasco is both Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.

The Republican supporter of marriage equality appears to have been hounded out of the GOP by far right extremist. Whether this is true or not, the implications for the GOP are clear:

1) It reinforces the GOP’s image among moderates and independents as a narrow-minded and intolerant party dominated by religious zealots … .

2) It reinforces Mitt Romney’s image as a politician who is either afraid or unwilling to take a principled stand and stick with it. …

Romney knew Richard Grenell was gay before he hired him and knew that some would object. Why didn’t Romney come to his defense and quell the unrest … ? …

And will Log Cabin Republicans withhold an endorsement? If not, LCR will have no credibility left come 2013.

For the Democrats, and the Obama campaign, the questions are about whether they will continue following the further Right movements of a Republican party which, when it comes to “social issues,” continues following the “far right extremists.”

(Richard Grennel photo via Towleroad)

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Obama Uses Newt Against Romney

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, on the eve of suspending his roller coaster presidential bid, said in an interview with USA TODAY that he will embrace Mitt Romney’s candidacy Wednesday and is ready to campaign for his former rival. – USA TODAY

A NEUTERED NEWT GINGRICH will endorse Mitt Romney today. Gingrich said he wouldn’t run in 2020. No, I’m not kidding.

Obama reelect promptly jumped on the opportunity to use Gingrich’s words against Romney against him again.

Dave Weigel nailed the problem and dug up the old Kennedy ad above, the facts of which I actually remember from 1980. That I’ve been a student of the Kennedys since I was a kid, coupled with the fact that I stood in gas lines in New York City while Pres. Carter suggested we all put on a sweater, as the hostage crisis ticked on day by day, all make Weigel’s point hit home to me.

Obama’s ad (see below) is just too antiseptic, too easy and predictable.

Both Romney and Obama are cut-out political dolls of the big corporate parties, which all of their ads mimic. I prefer campaigns with grit, gall and lots of heart, which certainly describes Teddy’s 1980 campaign to a tee. Never mind it was hopeless and seen by insiders as disastrous for Democrats, though it was actually more about Carter, but was still one reason Barack Obama didn’t get a challenger this year.

The big question now is whether Mitt will help Newt with his debt, which is an embarrassing example of hubris run amok. If Mitt Romney needs Newt Gingrich, so paying his debt will help him, I’m not sure that says anything good about the GOP nominee.

Newt Gingrich ends his White House dream today with his political committee facing a mountain of debts — owing about $4 million to scores of businesses and campaign workers around the country who fear they will never get paid.Yahoo! News

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

What If George W. Bush Had Killed Osama?


Honestly, Republicans should just quit digging.

If this is the best they’ve got November is going to be bloody. …for them.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

White House: “We can’t do anything about Drudge”

**updated**

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SECRET TRIP TO AFGHANISTAN was kept under wraps by responsible news media and members of the White House Press Corp.

The New York Post and Drudge could have cared less, with Drudge swapping links to keep the leak alive, while putting Pres. Obama’s life in danger.
Everyone has their priorities.

Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed has the incredible tick-tock and the story.

Per Jay Carney, via the pool report, after Obama’s speech to the troops, he visited a hospital on Bagram Airbase, gave out 10 purple hearts, as well as addressed the troops on the military radio system, thanking them for their service and what they continue to do.

As for Pres. Obama’s remarks and the strategic agreement, the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many years to come, through 2024 in a “support role.”

There are so many questions left to answer it’s unfathomable where to start.

As Prepared for Delivery

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than seven thousand miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries – a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan’s future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan’s neighbor – Pakistan – that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear timeline to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don’t leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander-in-Chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As President, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm’s way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan, and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Enter the Swift Boat Narrative on Obama’s OBL Decision

MICHAEL HASTINGS KNOWS the meaning of being swift-boated, as does Buzzfeed boss Ben Smith.

The swift boat headline is a winner, even if the usage and examples are incorrect, with the most important element of this story a buried lede that has nothing to do with swift-boating and could be a blockbuster if Pres. Obama’s opponents pick it up.

Of course, for that to happen people would have to keep two opposing thoughts in their head simultaneously, something that is rarely accomplished in U.S. politics. Those thoughts are that Pres. Obama earned bragging rights for okaying the OBL raid that was superbly executed, but that there is legitimate criticism coming from SEAL Team Six about what happened afterward.

Hastings begins by unleashing a torrent of speculative assumptions from a reporter usually known for sourcing and unbiased stories, though he eventually gets to the juice. A snippet from Hastings today:

But as the stagey outrage over the politicization of foreign policy from Mitt Romney and his Republican allies gained momentum over this past weekend, White House officials started to have their doubts. Was spiking the football, again, and again, and again, in a public such a good idea? Was it necessary? Was the campaign in Chicago, White House officials wondered, going too far?

Like Kerry’s war record, the vulnerability to the president’s Bin Laden story isn’t so much from the other side, as it from those who can claim the mantle of veteran. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the website: navysealsagainstobama.com sprout up soon. Sure, military servicemen are accustomed to being exploited by both the left and the right. But that strategy can have its weaknesses, too. If the assault on the Bin Laden narrative continues, and if the anger expressed in private by the SEALs remains very public, the campaign might be forced to retreat.

One can only imagine who these unnamed “White House officials” are, but someone at 1600 better get a grip on these leaks, because in a tough election cycle they can be a politician’s undoing, especially when it revolves a story so potentially explosive.

To “swift boat,” a subject on which I’m an expert, entails, in part, fabricating a damaging fantasy for partisan reasons, that hits the politician where he’s seen to be strongest. It is to associate a political opponent through a lie that attacks his or her credibility, wrapped in a smear campaign, that hits at the heart of an issue that makes his candidacy popular.

The reason the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were calamitous for Kerry’s campaign is that they took aim at his Silver Star in an offensive attack against a Democratic war hero that unpacked his bravery through misrepresentation and when that didn’t work utter bullshit, with Kerry caught flat-footed out of disbelief anyone would buy it. This tactic was eventually replicated against three-limb amputee and hero vet Max Cleland as well. It wasn’t the actions of either war hero in battle that were actually at issue, though swift-boating questioned their bravery and patriotism, but the fact that they were Democrats, with their opponents waging war on them because of it.

Swift-boating Obama would require vaunted heroes to lie, defame and concoct a narrative against the commander in chief, getting themselves dirty in the process, because swiftboating is never about truth. It’s about opportunity, along with the actors willing to play their parts for partisan gain, at all cost.

The first problem with Hastings swift boat narrative begins here:

What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.

According to whom? Republicans? SEAL Team Six members, current and former? Where’s the evidence that this is true, beyond Hastings putting his reputation behind words that come out of nowhere with no proof, but do support the political narrative people attacking Pres. Obama want to push.

Next from Hastings is something that actually matters and has absolutely nothing to do with swift-boating.

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.

Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?

Hastings is reporting a very substantive allegation here that’s the opposite of swift-boating, saying that Navy SEALS in the Team Six unit have questioned whether Pres. Obama’s naming them as OBL’s assassins got members of their team killed.

Coming from Hastings, whose reporting has been golden since the career ending interview with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, continuing in his book, which has been widely lauded, this should send shock waves through Obama reelect, with someone in the “war room” investigating it immediately, if only to be prepared.

John Kerry wasn’t prepared.

May the gods help Obama reelect if the right-wing rabble of Rush and Sean decide to take hold of this one, because they’ll never let go. Jerome Corsi is likely investigating it as you read this column. Having been burned on his birther book, he’s got to be chomping at the bit to find another angle to try to take down Obama.

The allegation Hastings floats has nothing to do with being swift-boated, but is a serious issue that could be exploited, which is quite separate from the scurrilous partisan skullduggery that is at the heart of what it means to swift boat your opponent.

Everyone’s still writing about the political gamesmanship going on, missing the potential news in Hastings’ Buzzfeed piece.

It’s dangerous for Pres. Obama, because if utilized through a coherent political strategy, it would bring the “naive” charge right back to Obama’s door. Republicans could contend that Pres. Obama openly naming SEAL Team Six put them in danger and got them killed, an event that happened long before the commander in chief rightfully took credit for okaying the daring raid.

However, concocting the naive narrative without proof would indeed be swift-boating and it’s something Rush, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter crowd, aided by wingnut bloggers, could easily manufacture and they wouldn’t need anything but Michael Hastings’ Buzzfeed piece to launch it.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

May Day: ‘The Whole World is Waking,’ ‘Which Side Are You On?’

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

“The Whole World is Waking” headlines at OWS. Florence Reece wrote the song “Which Side Are You On?” in 1931. The question is as relevant today as then. Her husband was a union organizer with United Mine Workers of Harlam County, Kentucky, and the efforts were met with corporate resistance largely enforced by law enforcement. The song is one of those used in today’s May Day actions, including with Guitarmy. Tom Morello helped organize the thousand or more guitarists and accompanying percussionists and many more general noisemakers, who marched in NYC to Union Square to perform “World Wide Rebel Songs.”

“Get Up! Get Down! There’s Revolution in this Town!” is one of the refrains frequently chanted. Put that with “Which Side Are You On?” and “The Whole World is Waking”, and the message is that “we the people” have a choice to make – or rather, a series of choices. That message is integral to today’s actions, and to the future of Occupy and related actions and advocacy.

On Day 228 of the Occupation, it’s been a very busy May Day around the world, and actions continue – from protests in front of banks and media outlets, to marches to teach-ins to picnics to music. Many Occupy events are scheduled for the evening. Many smaller locations have only late afternoon / evening actions. And according to OWS, labor and immigrant organization actions – some related with Occupy, some not – are largely scheduled for late afternoon.

Of course the numerous marches and gatherings of all sizes and kinds have included a police presence, and at least in NYC, accompanied by police “legal observers,” who join those from, among others, the ACLU. One arrest was for “standing too close to the curb.”

There’s way too much going on to do more than this very cursory overview, and encourage you to check out links, especially since actions continue. At OWS, see “Live Updates,” and scroll through it for an idea of some of what’s gone on, and continues. Also check out Greg Mitchell’s May Day live blogging at The Nation.

For live streaming, see Global Revolution. These include international as well as U.S. May Day actions. See also Occupied Air.

I’ve seen several reports of May Day Livestreams being blocked. I don’t know if this is accurate, but I do know the feed has been interrupted consistently, which at least in my experience, is unusual.

One specific story getting a lot of attention, via NewsNet5:

The Cleveland office of the FBI announced Tuesday the arrests of five people who allegedly tried to blow up a bridge in northeast Ohio. …

The report says the “bombs” were actually “duds,” though the five involved didn’t know that. Apparently there are no connections with any of the May Day event organizers, and Occupy Cleveland denied that the five were acting on behalf of Occupy. Apparently for safety reasons, however, the May Day Event sponsored by OC, North Short AFL-CIO, Jobs for Justice and more was cancelled. Naturally, this was picked up by the anti-OWS crowd, and spun accordingly.

The OWS and other Twitter feeds include a lot of pro-Occupy messages, but also a good number of anti-Occupy expressions, which isn’t unusual. A few examples of both follow. Interpret for yourself. I’m thinking that if today’s Occupiers are throwbacks to “hippies” then their critics are throwbacks to “America, love it or leave it” crowd of the same era, who interpreted any criticism of the status quo as “un-American” and “unpatriotic.”

Twitter Feeds:
Anti-Occupy tweets

If I lived in NYC I would be at #ows throwing water balloons at the hippies today filled with soap & water.

Hey #OWS Put the Doritos down, go up stairs and tell Mom and Dad you’ll be back when you find a job!! #youcandoitlosers

‏@FreedomNJ Happy May Day: remembering the 100 Million killed by socialists Lenin, Mao, Che, Stalin, Hitler #OWS | #Nj @michellemalkin

George Hatt‏@gohatt #OWS jerkoffs at it again — letting us know what it would be like living in a communist country.

Pro-Occupy tweets

Report that the Immigrant Justice march has been kettled at 41st and Park. #OWS is sending relief. #m1nyc

Michele Preziuso‏@michip94 Arrests going down on Willburg bridge. #OWS #M1GS

laura‏@laurapcd1 @greensboro_nc perfect weather for the #mayday march at 5pm! #m1gs #ows

OccupyIthaca RT @Chicagoist: Today’s May Day march could be a sign of things to come later this month. bit.ly/Iqu0NO #occupychicago #NATO

May 1st – International Guerrilla #Gardening Day bit.ly/InternationalS…

remembering the haymarket martyrs- executed fighting for the 8 hour day

NYPD Raids Activists’ Homes Before Tomorrow’s Occupy Wall Street Protests gaw.kr/qHAb

My best suggestion at this point is to click on the links above – and these are only a few of those available – and follow the May Day actions as they continue happening.

(May Day General Strike via OWS
May 1 General Strike via OWS
1 De Mayo via Occuprint)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Obama Ad: ‘Just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account’

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened. – Bloomberg

AS BACKGROUND, let me offer that the White House has never frozen me out of releases and press accounts because of criticism I’ve launched in their direction, which at times has been withering. I’m not invited to insider gaggles, but that’s perfectly understandable, because I’m not “a friend” of any politician at this point.

So, I’d post the response from team Romney to the ad above, because it’s my job and I’ve pledged to offer both sides, as I’m not endorsing anyone in 2012. Additionally, as I’ve written many times before, I think Obama and Romney are political bookends to a problem we have in politics that begins with the 1% buying the presidential election. But interestingly, ever since I asked team Romney an honest question about baptismal for the dead via Twitter, they’ve refused requests for campaign emails and press related material. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, so I’ve tried yet again this morning, so we’ll see what happens.

I certainly have a liberal bias, which I state openly and is also obvious, but my partisan political days for the sake of electing a Democrat are o-v-e-r and I get enough pro-Romney fodder and comments from long-time readers, as well as Independents, that I also feel compelled to offer both sides, which needs to come from the teams themselves whenever possible.

In full disclosure and in way of explanation of coverage I’ve given Pres. Obama recently, when he put forth free contraception for women, which Mitt Romney and the Republican are against, it was an lucrative economic prize for women that makes a difference in their daily lives for which Obama deserves credit. It comes after Obama’s very early and strong support for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which the Republican party was against, which equaled the playing field for women who were discriminated against in their jobs. These two issues alone, whether I’m a partisan or not, not only deserve mention and praise, but in the battle for the women’s vote gives Pres. Obama the advantage, because he’s proven his support on serious and pressing economic issues that can impact women. Both Ledbetter and free contraception directly affect the bottom line of single women, as well as working women, including those with families, while also being two policy decisions that Republicans opposed strongly. To not state bluntly that credit is due because it’s earned would be dishonest.

It’s the Romney campaign’s choice not to include me on their daily press list, though it requires no extra effort to do so. But if you’re wondering why you’re not getting their side of the story from the campaign’s mouth it’s because they won’t offer it to me and if that’s their stance I feel no compunction to go searching for it. I say this because long-time readers are now Romney supporters, as are some Independents that stop here, not to mention women who are concentrating on their financial status and not contraception, so not giving them the campaign’s version needs to be laid at team Romney’s doorstep, not mine.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Mitt Romney’s Retort

“Of course, even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” – Mitt Romney

IT’S THE QUOTE OF THE DAY and is pitch perfect for the national media and political press.

On whether Mitt Romney would have given the order to take out Osama bin Laden, the quote is via Ginger Gibson of Politico. They also remind everyone that George W. Bush never shrunk from using 9/11. Via Burns and Haberman:

…it’s worth noting that George W. Bush’s first ad of the 2004 campaign featured footage of a stretcher getting carried out of ground zero with remains, as well as the charred shell of the World Trade Center.

As to what voters will respond to Romney’s Jimmy Carter OBL retort, it wasn’t as much for voters as it was for the conservative base, who loathe Carter and think of him as the ultimate weak president.

As for Arianna Huffington defending Mitt Romney, CBS “Morning Show” (and Chris Licht) strikes again by getting the quote and some attention on an early morning talk show that is earning respect.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

May Day: From Haymarket Square to Public Spaces Around the World

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

Tomorrow, May 1, is the General Strike, the “Day Without the 99%”, planned by Occupy, immigrant and labor organizations, and more. Much of what’s being discussed includes a realization that tomorrow’s General Strike isn’t going to “shut down” whole cities, much less the nation. May Day organizers are well aware that for many people, taking a day off from work is very difficult, if not impossible (if you want to keep your job). The May Day strike is recognized as a bigger, visible step that begins a month, and likely a summer, of actions. But primarily, another of many steps, a moment in the process.

Attention by mainstream media – how much and how it spins – will be interesting to watch. I’m still guessing that, in general, the Republicans will use May Day in a scapegoat / scare tactic way, and Democrats will use it in a co-opting / scare tactic way.

May Day, or International Workers Day, has its beginnings in Chicago. At May Day NYC:

The origins of May Day lie in the revolutionary year of 1886: a wave of mass strikes surged across the heartland of America, focused on the fight for an 8-hour day. The American Federation of Labour had adopted a resolution stating ‘eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886’. In Chicago, over 100,000 workers struck. There, during a demonstration on May 3rd, a crowd confronted strike-breakers leaving the nearby McCormick factory, chasing them back inside. Without warning, police opened fire on the crowd, killing four and seriously wounding many.

The following day a rally was called at Haymarket Square to protest the police violence. … As the meeting was winding down, a group of 180 police stormed in and ordered everyone to disperse. A bomb was thrown towards the police line. Who threw it – whether protestor or provocateur – has never been determined. … One police officer was killed, many others were injured. The police opened fire on the crowd, killing dozens. … Eight revolutionary labor leaders were arrested, seven of whom had not even been present in Haymarket at the time. In the absence of any evidence linking them to the bomb, the ‘Chicago Eight’ were tried solely on the basis of their political beliefs. All eight were sentenced to death.

Several years later, in honor of their slain comrades, the Second International Congress declared May 1st International Workers Day.

Ironically – or maybe, just an unsurprising result of government and corporate pressure to erase such unpleasantness from history – May Day is widely celebrated internationally, but not in the nation where it originated. At May Day NYC:

… political repression can be seen in the … attempt to ‘forget’ May Day by renaming it: it was first renamed ‘Americanization Day’ in 1921, then ‘Loyalty Day’ and ‘Legal Day’ in 1958. Another manifestation of this repression can be seen in the attempts in the 1950s to ban May Day marches in NYC … .

For more history and analysis, see Occupy Wall Street Bridges the May Day Divide, and May Day’s Radical History.

Regarding this year’s actions, from Occupy.com:

On November 17, Occupy L.A. and Occupy Long Beach issued a joint call for a nationwide general strike, to occur on May Day 2012. Over the course of the last few months, general assemblies in New York, Oakland, Tampa, Minneapolis, Boston and dozens more have adopted the call.

For more, see May Day Directory, including a selective list of May Day actions around the world, as well as in the U.S.; Taking Back May Day and Where to Find Comprehensive Coverage of May Day’s National Protests.

Not surprisingly, the May Day (and beyond) plans have been noticed by government and corporations. For example, via Bloomberg:

The world’s biggest banks are working with one another and police to gather intelligence as protesters try to rejuvenate the Occupy Wall Street movement with May demonstrations, industry security consultants said. …

Banks cooperating on surveillance are like elk fending off wolves in Yellowstone National Park, (Brian McNary, director of global risk at Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations) said. While other animals try in vain to sprint away alone, elk survive attacks by forming a ring together, he said.

And this from OWS:

… the Obama Administration has released to corporate media a vague bulletin warning of possible terrorist attacks on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death. While the actual date of bin Laden’s death is May 2nd, many media outlets … have reported the date as May 1st. …

While both the FBI and Dept. of Homeland Security … , as well as the White House and top NYPD officials, have said there are no ‘credible’ or ‘specific’ threats, New York Congressman Peter King told local media the public ‘might notice increased security” on May 1st. …

In the same post, the Chicago Sun Times is quoted in regard to a

federal government … decision to create a ‘Red Zone’ … weeks before the NATO summit … .

The Federal Protective Service will deploy additional personnel beginning May 1, bringing in more people from out of town and outfitting them in ‘battle dress uniform.’ They will be carrying ‘non-lethal’ long guns … .

Put it all together, and this seems like a good way to close. From Press Action:

1,000 Reasons to Strike on May 1

No more denial. No more excuses. No more pretending everything is okay. No more waiting for someone else to step up and do it for us. …

(May 2012 Poster via OWS News)

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Pres. Obama at the Political Insiders Prom

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.”Pres. Barack Obama

AT THE 1% INTERSECTION OF ELITISM, access and insider greasing.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t funny.

I’m sure someone will find something wrong with Pres. Obama’s prepared jokes, because it wouldn’t be fitting to just enjoy the hilarity without bitching about some perceived slight or offense.

“We gather during a historic anniversary. This weekend last year, we finally delivered justice to one of the world’s most notorious individuals,” Obama said to a packed ballroom at the Washington Hilton.

A photo of Trump was shown, rather than that of slain al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Obama then went back even further in time.

“Four years ago, I was in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton,” Obama said. “Four years later, she won’t stop drunk texting me from Cartagena,” a reference to the city where Secret Service agents allegedly consorted with prostitutes.

The President of Cool, baby.

The king of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner remains Stephen Colbert roasting of George W. Bush.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Arrogant Amnesia: Obama Gets OBL, Republicans Stuck with ‘Mission Accomplished’ Cod Piece Photo Op



AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA in the Situation Room with Brian Williams on the bin Laden raid has exploded.

Sen. John McCain is having a hissy fit.

Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro is either the dumbest political writer on planet earth or is ignorant of presidential commander in chief powers. I’m guessing it’s both. He’s squealing like a little girl that Admiral McRaven was in charge of SEAL Team Six during the dangerous bin Laden raid, which in his mind means Pres. Obama is gutless, though how he comes to that conclusion takes a Olympic fete of intellectual fraudulence only someone from Breitbart could complete.

McRaven’s charge has been known since May 2011, written up by no less than Military.com, which also pointed to the thoroughness of the plan:

About 10 days before the raid, Obama was briefed on the plan. It included keeping two backup helicopters just outside Pakistani airspace in case something went wrong. But Obama felt that was risky. If the SEALs needed help, they couldn’t afford to wait for backup.

He said the operation needed a plan in case the SEALs had to fight their way out. So two Chinooks were sent into Pakistani airspace, loaded with backup teams, just in case. One of those Chinooks landed in the compound after the Black Hawk became inoperable.

Politically motivated and manufactured right wing reaction to the ad above revolves around a CIA memo obtained by TIME magazine, which proves absolutely nothing and raises no questions whatsoever, unless you’re a partisan hack.

Republicans actually believe the military is in charge of foreign policy and military actions. They have never understood our American republic is founded on the guiding principal of civilian leadership.

That Pres. Obama made the call and got the bastard of 9/11 galls them and they will do anything to discredit a gallant act of pure presidential leadership that was heroic, risky and revealed Barack Obama’s complete and total respect and faith in our elite military forces to get the dangerous, from military aspects to international and political hazards, job done.

I, for one, am loving it and can only say…

Finally.

At long last.

The ad I’ve been waiting to hit.

Having it narrated by former Pres. Bill Clinton is a stroke of political genius.

Unlike George W. Bush, who paraded himself around on an aircraft carrier, then took his place on a podium in front of a banner screaming “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” when it actually wasn’t and still isn’t in Iraq, Pres. Obama got the job done of getting Osama bin Laden.

Republicans are squealing bloody murder about an ad they would have tricked up and trotted out long before today. We would have been hearing about this every day since it happened, little doubt the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, who fictionalized Dick Cheney’s nuclear fantasies ad nauseam, given access to whatever Republican hero who’d gotten the madman of 9/11.

This U.S. military success, under the commander in chief Barack Obama, forever obliterates any question that he doesn’t have the right stuff to lead this nation. Republicans campaign to deny him his moment of leadership is everything that’s wrong with our politics.

Anyone can disagree with Pres. Obama’s politics, I do often and strongly, but Pres. Obama earned and deserves credit for making the decision and okaying the risky SEAL Team Six op to get OBL. It’s long past time he received it and nothing Republicans say should rob him of it.

As for using Mitt Romney’s words against him on national security, don’t make me laugh. Republicans have defamed military veterans who are Democrats, tarnishing their military service, even lying about vaunted combat awards.

That team Obama is hitting Mitt Romney on national security and foreign policy is not only fair game, it would be dereliction of political duty not to. Because unlike on the economy and business, there is absolutely no case to be made for Mitt Romney as commander in chief.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Queer Talk: Achieving Equality and Electoral Politics

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

(UPDATE at end)

Recently the Obama / Biden campaign site posted Progress for the LGBT Community, which begins:

Together we’ve fought for equal rights for LGBT Americans – and the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is just one example of the progress we’ve achieved since President Obama took office.

A timeline follows, tracing forty “achievements,” beginning with the June 17, 2009 order to the federal government “to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.” Obviously those couldn’t include spousal benefits, but in advocacy, tiny steps are much more likely than big ones. The last achievement listed came last month, and “ensured transgender veterans receive respectful care according to their true gender through the Veterans Health Administration.”

Several of the achievements are of the symbolic kind – “June 29, 2009: ‘Hosted the first-ever White House LGBT Pride reception’; … October 21, 2010: ‘Recorded ‘It Gets Better’ video to support LGBT youth experiencing bullying.’” Symbolic actions do have some significance, of course.

There are other, more substantive achievements, with widely ranging degrees of concrete results, including “October 28, 2009: ‘Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law’; … December 22, 2010: ‘Signed the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’; … December 6, 2011: ‘Created first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad’; … January 8, 2012: Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.’”

It’s frequently mentioned that Obama has done more for LGBTs than all other presidents combined, and that’s accurate. What’s often left out is that he’s been able to do all of this because he’s the first WH occupant to benefit from the decades of work by LGBTs and allies, including some Electeds. That Obama took advantage of the opportunities is good, but it’s more about the work done by others than about “fierce advocacy” on his part.

The “we” in the opening line – “Together we’ve fought for equal rights …” – could be more accurately defined if there was an accompanying list of organizations at local, state and national levels active for decades in equality advocacy. They, and the Queer grassroots, are most fundamentally the “we” who gave whoever was in the WH at this point in time the opportunities to take the forty actions, and much more.

In some ways, Obama’s cautious approach to LGBT equality mirrors what we see in society in general: we’re making progress, but the opposition is still significant. In other ways, he’s behind the curve. That’s true, for example, regarding his failure to sign an executive order regarding employment protections.

At this year’s annual conference of the UCLA School of Law’s William’s Institute (which works to advance “sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy”), the focus was on “whether, in 2012, LGBT people are equal participants in the political process.” Brad Sears, Executive Director for the Williams Institute said:

‘Increasingly, LGBT participate openly in every branch of government, as elected officials, judges and as voters and jurors. However, research shows that they still face considerable challenges due to prejudice and discrimination.’

The list of forty achievements are on the Obama / Biden campaign site. There’s no pretense this isn’t about revving up the LGBT vote. It’s typical electoral politics. So is producing proposals, and even actions, aimed at specific constituencies. So, for example, as reported by The Advocate:

The White House took a significant step toward equality on Friday announcing that President Obama fully supports the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Though not a direct WH action, another on the plus side, via HRC, regarding

a ruling … by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) … in which it concluded that the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes discrimination based on gender identity. …

Currently, there is no federal law explicitly barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. While many states have moved to protect LGBTs under their own anti-discrimination laws, there are no such protections based on sexual orientation in 29 states, or based on gender identity in 34 states.

In an example of LGBT (and beyond) equality opposition and election year politics, this one just played out yesterday. As Think Progress wrote earlier:

The Politicization Of Domestic Violence

For the first time since its original passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is facing a fight.

(VAWA) … is an effective and beneficial effort to prevent domestic violence and aid victims of domestic or sexual abuse. … (T)he bill has been reauthorized twice, and both times has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Until now. This time, Republicans have decided to hold the bill hostage. Why? Because of added provisions that expand the classes of victims who would be protected — specifically, Native Americans, the LGBT community, and undocumented immigrants. …

Then yesterday, the Senate passed VAWA. Via HRC, the vote was bipartisan, 68-31, with an earlier defeat of:

… an amendment that would have re-written the bill and excluded protections for LGBT victims by a vote of 36-63. …

So, a win in the Senate. The House hasn’t yet voted on VAWA, though it might next month.

“Together we’ve fought for equal rights,” Obama / Biden say. In the case of this Senate vote, the “we” was even bipartisan. That’s good. But Electeds, in a bipartisan manner, are always paying attention to the next election, and fairly often take more credit than they should for “achievements.” Most of the “we” at the grassroots and organizational levels know that, and just keep on doing the work that makes it possible to add another achievement to the list.

UPDATE re. VAWA : Issued this afternoon, an HRC press release, “condemning” the “partisan version” of VAWA introduced in the House today, includes this from Solmonese: “The House Republican leadership’s version of VAWA reflects their political objectives, but not the needs of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

( Photo via LGBT News)

Read full story · Comments { 6 }