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

‘Christian’ Terrorist Murders Dr. Tiller at Church

By on 31 May 2009

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence. – President Barack Obama

Photobucket

Witness the pro selective life policies of the extremists on the right, who, in the name of all that’s unholy, listen to hate speech and act on it with a vengeance.

No doubt he was wearing a bullet proof vest, as some doctors who guard the health and rights of women are forced to do because of religious terrorists, and on his way to worship this fine spring Sunday morning, Dr. George Tiller was murdered, possibly by a head shot.

That would match the typical threat: “Don’t bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we’re going for a head shot.” Though how he was slain hardly matters.

The same belief that guided Tiller’s murderer driving much of the far right on issues of freedom and choice for anyone not kowtowing to their way of life.

It weaves through our society in hate speech funneled through right-wing radio, but also on shows like the “O’Reilly Factor,” as is illustrated by the video here (h/t Andrew Sullivan), as O’Reilly targets Dr. Tiller not caring how it’s done.

It’s a type of political terrorism that exists on the right, which destroys lives of women and even their doctors through their pro selective life theory of life.

Women who went to Dr. Tiller for help desperately needed him, and few went without knowing the gravity of their situation or what they were going to do.

When you have a doctor walking into church service murdered because of the medical procedures he performs, it illustrates the desperation of the “Christian” terrorists involved in trying to change minds by aborting the freedom of those they condemn through killing them, because they believe their pro selective life theories are somehow righteous.

We send a silent meditation to Dr. Tiller, but also his grandchildren, his children, and his wife, as well as his extended family at his clinic.

And next time Rush or Sean or Glenn Beck start railing their pro selective life rhetoric, I hope everyone reminds them that some people really do take what they say to heart.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Health Care Hit Job to Air on NBC

By on 30 May 2009

This ad is filled with distortions. It’s set to air immediately following “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

One item in it is easily debunked from HHS:

The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research.

SEIU has written a letter to NBC over their decision to air a 30-minute infomercial filled with fearmongering through falsehoods about universal health care. They remind NBC that as a licensee, they have a responsibility to the public beyond just making money.

There are many of you very involved and interested in the health care debate. Seems like a call to action to me.

TM NOTE: SEIU is currently running an ad here on this issue, which is completely independent of this editorial. However, it’s no secret that I’m not only a former union member, but have in the past been hired as a reporter for them and support their work. I hope you click on the ad in the right hand margin when it appears to learn how you can help.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hunting Sotomayor

By on 30 May 2009

Republicans are now in a full on hunt to kill Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

G. Gordon Liddy referring to Judge Sotomayor’s cycle: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Rush Limbaugh comparing her to David Duke.

Rove led it off saying she wasn’t really that smart.

Sotomayor has been called the affirmative action pick, because she’s supposed to be some dumb broad. NRO using 9/11 to attack Sotomayor over the Ricci case.

Obama’s pick has been dragged through every epithet possible, with the crazy menstruating woman with her hand on the gavel Liddy’s contribution.

I want to know how anyone can listen to this vitriol and still want to be a Republican.

Where’s their outrage?

Where are the women in their party?

Not the phony, tepid stuff, but a full on step up to the plate, call a press conference, We must halt the smearing of a woman who’s only crime has been to exceed where so many others have not. A get back to the issues rallying cry. But instead, Sotomayor is being hunted by the right because she’s a woman, but especially because she’s Hispanic.

The Republicans seem to believe and are illustrating how little respect a well educated, powerful and strong Hispanic woman deserves.

The Republican Party’s deep hatred of Hispanics has spewed over because of Sonya Sotomayor’s nomination. That she’s a woman allows the misogynistic streak that also lives large in the GOP to vent fully.

I’m not even certain that a white female nominee for the Supreme Court would get this kind of treatment from the GOP.

Their deep abiding disrespect of Hispanics, especially females, knows no bounds.

Read full story · Comments are closed

WSJ: Republican Attackers of Sotomayor are ‘Idiots’

By on 29 May 2009

Well, it took them all week, but a lonely few in the Republican Party, including the WSJ and Senator Cornyn, have decided they’ve got more to lose than gain if they keep up the attack on Judge Sotomayor, especially since the attackers decided to go personal instead of through the issues, which is always fair game.

Some, and they are idiots, look at Judge Sotomayor and say: attack, attack, kill. A conservative activist told the New York Times, “We need to brand her.” Another told me a fight is needed to excite the base.

Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent? How about gain the attention of people who aren’t already on your side?

… Serious opposition to Judge Sotomayor is not only fair, it’s necessary: It’s your job to oppose if you oppose. But it should be serious, not merely partisan.

As for Sen. Cornyn, who can’t afford to offend Hispanics in Texas, he was even more blunt.

“I think it’s terrible,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR’s “All Things Considered” Thursday. “This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

… The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office.

“Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong,” he said.

Sometimes politics simply gets down to being practical, where self interest meets self destructive.

Last night Dick Morris talking to Sean Hannity, he said Republicans can’t win this one and should move on. When Hannity pressed him Morris changed the subject, then pointedly asked Hannity, Did you notice I changed the subject? Hey, you can bring a wingnut to water, but that’s as far as he’ll ever go.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Everything But the ‘B’ Word

By on 29 May 2009
Photobucket

Oh, can we just get it over with already?

Call Judge Sotomayor a bitch shrill so we can just move on.

As if on cue, here comes the New York Times with a heading that is meant to do everything but that: Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament.

Raises this issue with whom? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich? The former, a man who has been married three times, calls women “feminazis” and “info-babes,” reporter babes, and been caught with so many illegal prescriptions he ended up with mug shot; the latter someone who dumped his wife while she was fighting cancer to marry his aide, a scandal that caused him to run squealing from the House in disgrace.

Never mind what Tom Tancredo shrieked. Seriously, never mind.

The gist of the complaints in the article coming down to… drum roll… She’s tough. Oh, no, not another ball buster, er… tough woman. The men will melt. You know, because lawyers are such shrinking violets.

But after that heading from the Times, the article goes on to actually disprove it.

Those skills, some observers say, could make her an able politician on the Supreme Court and allow her to serve as an intellectual counterweight to Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who is known for his acerbic questioning.

“In some ways she could match, well, the other New Yorker on the court, Justice Scalia,” said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University. “He expects people to give back as good as he gives, and I expect that when Justice Sotomayor is on the court, his wish will be fulfilled.”

Both colleagues and lawyers who have argued before her agree that her style is assertive.

Assertive, yee gads, run for your life. Wonder if anyone ever called Scalia a prick, ahem, I mean, jerk?

No wonder Rush and Newt are so freaked out. Their maleness shrinks at the thought of it.

However, the part I love best about the Times article is this bombshell section:

Other lawyers, though, are not so enamored. In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges, she has gone from generally rave reviews to more tepid endorsements. Among the comments from lawyers was that she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner” and attacks lawyers “for making an argument she doesn’t like.”

“Terror on the bench,” said some unnamed source, which the Times felt compelled to share.

“Behaves in an out-of-control manner,” said someone, though we haven’t a clue whom.

“For making an argument she doesn’t like,” anonymous “lawyers” felt “attacked.” Aw, poor babies.

No wonder Sen. Roberts from Kansas has decided to vote against her.

Buried in the article, however, is an essential anecdote that actually should have been the lede:

Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who taught Ms. Sotomayor there and now sits with her on the Second Circuit, said complaints that she had been unduly caustic had no basis. For a time, Judge Calabresi said, he kept track of the questions posed by Judge Sotomayor and other members of the 12-member court. “Her behavior was identical,” he said.

“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”

Give that man a prize.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From Dumb Broad to Emotional

By on 28 May 2009

Republicans are running amok on how to attack Sotomayor most effectively. Nothing is sticking.

They started by trying out the Harriet Miers theory that Judge Sotomayor was basically some dumb broad who is where she is because of race, even twisting that into she’s a racist herself.

Karl Rove tried one tactic when Obama announced Sotomayor, that she “wasn’t that smart,” plus she also wasn’t that attractive, and now he’s trying another. Though how looks play into being on the Supreme Court I’ll never know. Now it’s her ability to empathize with people, which Rove believes revolves around –wait for it– “emotion.”

… “Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America’s commitment to “the rule of law” but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them. …

Classic Karl.

As for bringing up Miguel Estrada, I doubt if one in ten Americans even remember who he is. Not exactly the lightning rod topic that will inspire outrage. Oh, right, Estrada was filibustered by Democrats when he was up for the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pres. Obama obviously knows how this works, so he got out in front on his nominee. It’s paid off.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters nationwide believe Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. That figure includes 59% who believe her confirmation is Very Likely.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just five percent (5%) say her confirmation by the Senate is unlikely.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sotomayor Viewed Favorably by Public

By on 28 May 2009

Photobucket

Newt Gingrich will have to try harder, yell louder, Twitter his racist screeds more regularly: “White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

Round one on the roll out goes to Pres. Obama.

Americans’ first reactions to the news of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court are decidedly more positive than negative, with 47% rating the nomination as “excellent” or “good,” 20% rating it “only fair,” and 13% rating it “poor.” – Gallup

But rumbling underneath is the question about Judge Sotomayor’s position on abortion. During her interviews, Pres. Obama evidently didn’t ask, at least not directly.

“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.”

… But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”

Yesterday I linked to two instances where Sotomayor has proven to be open to siding with conservatives, one, the Gag Rule. She also ruled that police handled abortion protesters too harshly.

We deserve to know if Sotomayor considers Roe v. Wade settled case law. Because if Obama appoints someone who would waver on women’s civil rights there will be hell to pay.

Right now there is too much noise on extraneous issues that deflect from the importance of issues. This serves no one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sessions: ‘I don’t sense a filibuster in the works’

By on 27 May 2009

Evidently, political suicide is not palatable to Republicans.

Senator Sessions also states Sotomayor deserves an “up or down” vote.

On the other side we have more racist rants.

Not being a legal scholar, I can still read an opinion and deduce the core of it. Digested versions of Sotomayor’s opinions are here, here, here, here and here, with more at Christy Hardin Smith. Judge Sotomayor leans left. However, she’s ruled in favor of abortion rights protesters, but also questioned the Gag Rule. See Scotusblog:

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves. Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

BeliefNet has a provocative post up on Sotomayor, asking if she’s “an abortion centrist,” whatever that means.

One wonders what liberals will think when Judge Sotomayor becomes a Supreme Court Justice, but turns out to be an independent mind leveling opinions that don’t track with the average litmus test every time, which has certainly been the case so far.

However, a litmus test on ideology was not Pres. Obama’s bar for his nominee to clear. That’s what may hit home more than anything once Sotomayor is on the Court. Because barring some yet unearthed investigative bombshell, that’s where she’s headed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rush Plays the Race Card Against Sotomayor

By on 26 May 2009

–updated–

Photobucket
Sotomayor as a child.

Rush Limbaugh went on quite a tirade today. I heard it. Here’s part of it:

So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he’s appointed one — getting this, AP? — Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court …

So she’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be, she’s not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So yes, there’s a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in and this is how it could happen. Now will the Republicans do it? That’s another question.

A racist is a racist, reverse has nothing to do with it.

But juxtaposed against Judge Sotomayor’s humble nomination acceptance speech today (see video), I don’t think there’s any doubt what Rush is really trying to do. Raise the issue that the white guy has been overlooked because of affirmative action; pit one person against another because in his judgment all things are now equal.

Hannity did the same thing on his show today. The world should be color and gender blind, because all things are equal, even if they’re not.

As an aside, people are doing the same thing with women too, saying sexism doesn’t exist because women are succeeding in greater numbers, even if we’re paid less and have fewer chances to rise to the top.

One African American president doesn’t make the playing field even for all.

Lily Ledbetter Act doesn’t dissolve the sexism that is real.

Judge Sotomayor making the case that a Latina woman has different experiences that make her judgment richer in some cases doesn’t make her a racist.

Photobucket
Sotomayor and her baby brother.

I’m a little surprised that Rush didn’t come right out to squeal the opening lines to the wingnut anthem: Rise up. Hispanics are taking our jobs!

But “reverse racism” is nothing less than a desperate man’s argument. Desperate because the blue collar white guy is leaving the Republican Party in droves. I won’t say that they’ve finally learned the American Dream can never be captured through Republican policies, but instead keep them in a constant state of wanting, while feeding the guys at the top like Rush. But after 8 years of George W. Bush they can look at their paycheck to see it’s not going as far as it used to. If they have a paycheck at all. And they can’t blame Obama because he just arrived.

Rush’s “reverse racism” rallying cry is pathetic. From a rich Republican male who has been so long at the game that he’s beginning to sound like a Dixiecrat. Strom Thurmond would be proud.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Conservatives Cite 9/11 & Harriet Miers to Smear Sotomayor

By on 26 May 2009

The knives are already out. With conservatives proving they will go so low as to invoke 9/11 to twist Sotomayor’s judicial opinions into something they are not. But given Pres. Obama’s Supreme Court campaign kick off today, it seems he’s daring Republicans to come gunning for his nominee. He won’t be disappointed.

Wendy Long of NRO goes long:

Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety.

But it is on the now controversial case of the recent firefighter case Ms. Long twists reality to fit her vision, digging in to use 9/11 to make her case against Sotomayor:

On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America’s firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

Talk about tortured rhetorical logic.

It doesn’t compare to Ramesh Ponnoru, who offers the most hilarious charge in his Sotomayor is a lightweight fantasy post, “Obama’s Harriett Miers.” No, he’s not kidding. Evidently a woman of Puerto Rican parents who grew up in the projects of the South Bronx, diagnosed with diabetes at age 8, who then made it to summa cum laude at Princeton University, where she earned the highest award given to Princeton undergraduates, Pyne Prize, who then went on to get her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal equals lightweight. Only in the alternative universe of Mr. Ponnoru. Republicans can try to come at her, but if they want to be taken seriously they should ignore Mr. Ponnoru (though I hope they won’t).

On MSNBC Jonathan Turley is “disappointed,” speaking as a legal academic.

Sotomayor has “never had a death penalty case,” according to CNN’s Jeffrey Tubin.

“Hard pressed politically” to oppose Sotomayor, is Julien Epstein’s appraisal of what Republicans will face in opposing her. He’s correct. If Republicans are smart they’ll outline her judicial opinions, then save their fire for another day, because Obama will get another pick before this is over.

Judge Sotomayor will be heard through her confirmation, but Pres. Obama beginning her campaign will be what’s heard tonight. The first political salvo, if you will, and a powerful one at that. As the old saying goes, elections have consequences. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and likely with many more than 60 votes.

Some of that outcome will be because of politics, of course. It’s not like Hispanics won’t be watching each Republican in the Senate.

Segue to one of NRO’s latest posts: Drudge highlights Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic (hit) piece… Ah, yes, trying to make Drudge relevant again.

Scotus is more sane.

In the coming nomination fight, we won’t allow conservatives to truncate quotes or take things Sotomayor has said out of context, which is their first stop before swiftboating fine people who deserve what they’re being given, because they’ve earned it. Currently that’s being done with one particular quote about Latino women having better judgment than a white male. Sotomayor’s full speech, entitled “A Latina’s Judge’s Voice,” is powerful, the money quote being used against her, but offered in full context, below:

… Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. [...]

Conservatives will make their case. As they would say, bring it on. Judge Sotomayor is one strong, well qualified and equipped Latina woman they won’t be able to back down.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From Projects to the Supreme Court

By on 26 May 2009

–updated–

Photobucket
OBAMA: In swift, 15 minute decision,
“Some say Sotomayor saved baseball.”

In the middle of a web outage in my work world, the news of Sotomayor came.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama’s nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years. …

The controversial firefighter case mentioned above is set to come to the Supreme Court. It’s been covered across the cable dial. TO ADD: Sotomayor will not be part of the deliberations on this one, as it will be up before the current session ends.

Tuning to Fox News Channel where they featured Karl Rove, his complaints about her were a bit of a scramble. According to Karl, Obama will now be seen as the true wild-eyed liberal he really is.

An inspired choice by Pres. Obama. First nominated to the courts by Bush 41, Bill Clinton promoted her. No matter what’s being said, Judge Sotomayor’s personal history is the stuff of struggle and conquest. That she’s a woman thrills people like me to no end. But speaking honestly, she was the pick I was hoping for, though I wondered if the description of “bully” would stick and scuttle the chance. It didn’t.

The announcement will come in about an hour from now.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Around the World

By on 24 May 2009

–updated–

Starting at home, with one lone Republican thinking casting Speaker Pelosi as “Pussy Galore” is “reprehensible, irresponsible and unpersuasive.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Politico Saturday:

“I thought it was reprehensible, irresponsible and unpersuasive. If we’re going to regain the credibility of the American people, we’re going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction,” he said of the video.

Of course, some in the conservative chorus would prefer to keep the R(Rush) N(Newt) C(Cheney) Party relegated to minority status. Fine with me, but the fact they are so defensive, while attacking what I wrote yesterday (see Memeorandum today), illustrates how cluelessly tone deaf the Republican base remains, even after getting shellacked in November. What Republicans refuse to admit, even when they are dragged to admit Steele’s ad is not helping them, is that implying that any woman, but especially the first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history, be called “Pussy” is undeniably offensive in the real world. But according to right wing bloggers I’m “hyperventilating.” The most hilarious part of the attacks are their lack of analytic prowess, opining that my problem is of the nudity implied in the “Pussy Galore” imagery. Evidently, not only can’t conservatives understand the offense, but they can’t even get the attack on the messenger (me) correct. If right wing bloggers are attacking you, you’re winning.

From STARS (and Stripes): Troops prepare to counter opium-poppy harvest in Afghanistan.

Tom Ridge opines on Rush:

Pennsylvania Republican Tom Ridge is taking direct aim at Rush Limbaugh, telling CNN’s John King the conservative talk radio host can be “shrill” and uses language in a way “that offend very many.”

Maybe this is part of the “emerging” Republican Party to which Colin Powell spoke about recently. To add, that Gen. Powell has become the latest veteran to run into the conservative buzz saw, which happens with any soldier or veteran who dares to buck the Republican line.

Next to the subject of Israeli settlements. Bush-Cheney may be gone, but they’re still gumming up the works in progress:

The Obama administration is pressing the Israeli government to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas, U.S. and Israeli officials said, seeking a visible symbol of progress on peace that might inspire Arab states to consider normalizing relations with Jerusalem. The administration’s effort is being accompanied by greater willingness by U.S. lawmakers to complain publicly about settlements, but it has been complicated by an unwritten agreement on the issue between Israel and the United States reached during the Bush administration. …


Video: Mexico Jailbreak.

LA Times has a story on Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda recruits back in Europe, but why?

Onward to Pakistan, where reporting is that Pakistan has “intensified” their offensive against the Taliban.

BBC has a story on this as well.

The military says the city is surrounded, most of the militants’ ammunition dumps are destroyed and their supply routes cut off.

The BBC’s Shoaib Hassan, in Islamabad, says it is the most important battle yet in the army’s offensive against the Taliban in Swat.

A swift victory would bolster public support for a greater fight against the militants, our correspondent adds.

Long War Journal has more, with an Al Qaeda twist.


Video: Sri Lanka.

And a question, What will Obama do?

.. In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said. …

Hope everyone is enjoying the Memorial Day weekend. Fly the flag. Thank a soldier.

Read full story · Comments are closed

RNC Tags Pelosi ‘Pussy Galore’ in Video

By on 23 May 2009

At the end it says “Democrats Galore.” Imposed with a naked woman behind the tag line. Get it? Subtle it is not. But check out the video at around :40 seconds; a split screen that says it all. “Pussy Galore” is shown with “Starring Nancy Pelosi the Speaker” over “Pussy’s” image.

But hey, it’s good to have a sense of humor about these things right? And who doesn’t love the Bond films, especially those Sean Connery classics?

The RNC, however, is not celebrating the women in these classic movies, even by 1960′s standards. Nor are they empowering women through utilizing one of the the cunning female villains who parade around in them by equating her with Speaker Pelosi. I shouldn’t have to spell it out any further, though if the RNC doesn’t have women in their leadership ranks or men who get this stuff and know bad taste when they see it, the Rush, Newt and Cheney Party (as they were aptly called on “Hardball” yesterday) is truly nothing more than a frat boy institution. No offense to fraternities meant.

That a woman, let alone Speaker of the House, should never be hinted to in any public way through the use of “Pussy” insinuations should be obvious. That this is being used by a once major political party in the 21st century is stunning.

But this is one way to skin an adversary, especially if she’s a woman. Ladies, especially Clinton supporters, have been here before.

From Politico:

Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as “this bitch”; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined “how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.”

[...] But “hag”? The P-word? Really? Not only is it bad form, say Democrats and women’s advocates, it’s bad politics.

“They can’t seem to distinguish between a backroom smirk among the boys and something you put out in public,” says former Hillary Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis of the RNC video. …

As an aside, the video shown on Garance Franke-Ruta’s post, linked to by Ben Stein, seems different from the one now up on the RNC website, which you can see here. The earlier web video “removed by user.” hmmmm… Wonder why?

If the RNC thinks this is the way to attract people to their Party they’ve evidently decided that women won’t be a respected member of their tribe.

Someone needs to tell the Republican Party it’s not 1964 anymore.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liz Cheney Rising

By on 22 May 2009

I’ve been waiting for this one:

The hottest Republican property out there isn’t former Vice President Dick Cheney but his daughter Liz, who has taken to the airwaves to defend her dad and the whole Bush administration on national security and Guantánamo Bay issues. Liz Cheney, who followed the former veep’s hard-hitting speech criticizing President Obama’s policies with a CNN appearance, is becoming so popular in conservative circles that some want her to run for office.

Oh, to be watching Sarah Palin when she reads about this.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rep. Alan Grayson’s Happy Memorial Day Bill

By on 22 May 2009

It’s addressed to everyone.

Okay, it’s not exactly a “Happy Memorial Day Bill,” but it could be, as he’s introducing the Paid Vacation Act, “legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.”

Because of the 50- and 100-employee thresholds, most small businesses wouldn’t be directly affected by the bill immediately.

[...] Grayson’s bill is part of a larger move by Democrats to improve employee and workplace standards. Earlier this month, Democrats introduced a bill that would make employers give mandatory sick time.

“The committee is looking at a number of proposals to help workers balance family responsibilities and work duties,” said House Education and Labor Committee spokesman Aaron Albright. “The fact is the United States is behind the rest of the world in ensuring that workplaces have paid leave policies. These policies not only benefit workers but also help the employers’ bottom line because of lower turnover and better job satisfaction.”

Needless to say the right is screaming bloody murder over Grayson’s move.

Evidently some don’t understand that burnout is a real issue in the modern era, especially with families working dual jobs and overtime to pay the bills. Overwork can be a health issue as well, just as much as it impacts the family.

Now all I have to do is get myself to pay myself a paid holiday. I usually have to pay someone else for me to take an unpaid break.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Let the Fearmongering Continue

By on 22 May 2009

–updated–

It’s the how low can you go? game, with Michael Steele and the Republicans. Desperation time and it’s not even an election season.

The web ad is a take off on the famous “Daisy” ad taken to new lows. This time it’s not nuclear war to fear, but the closure of Guantanamo. Nuclear war equals closing Gitmo? Mind you, at the time the ad aired it was considered so over the line that as soon as it was aired it was pulled. It also didn’t help the Republicans at the time, and boy do they need help right now.

But it is special that a couple of Senate Democrats, Reid and Webb, provide the sound, with Robert Gibbs offering the exclamation. How Greg Craig allowed the President and Mr. Gibbs to be caught in this position I’ll never understand.

The RNC relishes this stuff, as you can see in Charles Krauthammer’s column today. Trying to make the case that Obama plans a national security strategy akin to what Bush did in his Administration, just with a little different window dressing.

I don’t remember Bush saying anything about Israel getting rid of settlements do you? That’s because he didn’t. Bush also didn’t lift a finger in the Middle East, except to aid Israel in a war with Lebanon that was a disaster for them.

I also don’t remember Bush doing anything concrete in Afghanistan after bombing them to smithereens. Instead, he invaded a country that wasn’t a clear and present danger to this country, tipping the balance of power towards Iran.

As for Pakistan, Bush’s Musharaff policy got us into the mess over there. All Bush did was prop up a man who was actually not helping our aims in Pakistan at all, while completely ignoring the unraveling.

As for our alliances, Bush-Cheney obliterated relations with most of our Arab allies so that President Obama basically has to start from scratch.

On the other hand, you simply cannot contend that you’re going to continue military tribunals, only with a twist, after promising change and think blowback won’t occur.

You cannot say you’re bringing change then reverse decision on releasing torture photos, which was hailed by the right and Dick Cheney as not only a flip flop, but siding with the Bush administration.

You cannot talk about law and order and the Constitution throughout a mostly laudable national security speech then say the people who concocted U.S. torture policy should not be held accountable.

And you cannot talk about ending DADT then think a long winding court route to ending it will bring cheers from die hard supporters who thought change meant reversal.

It’s going to take a lot more than one speech to break away from Bush’s policies. Action in the opposite direction on the things that caused Bush-Cheney to be held in such contempt would be a good start. You know, like this.

UPDATE: McClatchy has an excellent round up of some of the things Cheney didn’t talk about.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Fun with Michael Steele

By on 19 May 2009

Mr. Steele delivers an ultimatum:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told FOX News that part of his job is to “manage the money” and suggested that if committee members strip him of that authority he’ll step aside.

“They can contemplate all they want to, but the reality is if they want a figurehead chairman you can have a figurehead chairman, but it won’t be Michael Steele,” he said.

Steele’s big contribution is to put up for a vote whether Republicans should call liberals the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

Any Democrat should pray the Republicans stay with Steele. He’s the gift that keeps on giving.

As the video illustrates, Steele has trouble with reality and any Republican culpability in the mess we’re currently in. That he deems Obama “farther left than we imagine” should come with a laugh track. His audience seems to be asleep.

I’m not sure what to make of this Politico article penned by Mr. Steele. “The Republican Party turns a corner” is at the best wishful thinking, at the worst political delusion.

The Republican Party still has no path to enticing the American people to follow their lead.

“The honeymoon is over,” declares Steele. I can’t help but think this statement applies more to his own “leadership” position than anything having to do with President Obama.

But what’s really astounding is that MSNBC gave Mr. Steele around 30 minutes of air time today. It must have been nap time in the control booth.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Keystone Republicans, Democratic Stooges

By on 19 May 2009

You almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost. The pitch is just pathetic.

“The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over,” Steele will say in a speech to the RNC’s 2009 State Chairmen’s Meeting, according to excerpts obtained by CNN. “It is done. We have turned the page, we have turned the corner. No more looking in the review mirror. From this point forward, we will focus all of our energies on winning the future.”

Oh, if only words were wings.

Problem is that hardly anybody is interested in what Michael Steel and his Party are peddling.

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

It makes it all the more curious why Republicans think their full scale war on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, complete with the demand that she resign, could actually work. Desperation meets delusional.

Newt Gingrich offers up a most bizarre charge that she’s no longer fit to be Speaker. But that actually came after Rush Limbaugh uttered the hilarious notion of whether Pelosi will really break the glass ceiling and resign her job, like a Republican man would do. Someone on one of the cable shows today said Pelosi would likely be able to keep her job through Memorial Day.

In what alternative universe do Republicans, in their current state, get to grab the talking point and run with it at a time when Democratic power is at a high after an Administration that ran this country into the ground, including our image and prestige abroad?

The fact that Speaker Pelosi got one briefing that’s causing such a ruckus is nothing compared to the reality of what Bush and Cheney supervised. Do I have to actually write this down?

But having to listen to the self-righteous Mike Huckabee opine on how Speaker Pelosi should “resign” is really the kicker.

It’s gotten to the point that I’m not really interested in what anyone thinks of Pelosi, because allowing Republicans to turn this in on Democrats while they twist talking about torture into a game is so infuriating one can only judge that some Democrats have a self loathing so strong that they’d rather hand over the keys than stick it to the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

Having Norah O’Donnell tell Matthew Ygelsias that Bush-Cheney’s torture debacle will not be investigated because Democrats don’t want it, just as Pelosi is being asked to resign, was as Alice in Wonderland as I want to watch.

But something tells me it’s going to get worse. That is unless Democrats wake up and hand the Republicans what they deserve. A real investigation that gets to the nub of our national nightmare. Or are our leaders too stupid or lazy to keep the spotlight trained on the bad guys long enough to finish the job, happy instead to let the scandal linger so that we never really know the truth?

May the gods damn the weak if the guilty are let to slip away.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Appoints Hunstman for China

By on 16 May 2009

–updated–

Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, due to his Mormon mission in Taiwan (missions being the right of passage for devout Mormons), Gov. John Huntsman has solidified himself as a major player in the future of the Republican Party by accepting Pres. Obama’s charge to become Ambassador to China. It also doesn’t hurt that he began in the Reagan administration, going through Bush 41 and into Bush 43.

Let me add that it’s rare when the star of one political party gives the adversary’s rising star such a marketable platform for future political advancement. Worth noting, so I just wanted to add this point.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATION OF GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN AS AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. I am here to announce today the distinguished public servant I’m appointing as our nation’s new ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. I’m making this appointment mindful of its extraordinary significance. Given the breadth of issues at stake in our relationship with China, this ambassadorship is as important as any in the world –- because the United States will best be able to deal effectively with global challenges in the 21st century by working in concert with China.

There are few countries in the world with a past so rich or a future so full of possibility as China. With a vast population, a growing economy, and far-reaching influence, China will have a crucial role in confronting all the major challenges that face Asia and the world in the years ahead.

And that’s why we’re working with the government of China to stem the financial crisis that’s devastated economies around the world and help lay a foundation for sustainable growth and lasting prosperity on both sides of the Pacific. That’s why I’ve spoken with Chinese President Hu Jintao about a number of regional threats, including the situations in North Korea and Pakistan. And that’s why we will continue working together with China on a whole host of global challenges — ranging from energy and climate change to public health; from nuclear non-proliferation to terrorism and violent extremism.

I believe there’s much to be gained from a closer, working relationship with China. But improved relations with China will require candor and open discussion about those issues where we don’t always agree, such as human rights and democracy and free speech. And it will require that each of our nations play by the rules in open and honest competition.

And that’s why this ambassadorship takes on such importance. I can think of no one better suited to take on this assignment than the Governor of the great state of Utah, Jon Huntsman.

When I asked Jon to accept this critical post, I knew it would require a sacrifice on the part of his family, and I want to thank Mary Kaye and all of their children for making this possible. I knew it would require a sacrifice from Jon –- who will be giving up a seat as a popular governor, having just been reelected to a second term. And I hope the good people of Utah will forgive me and understand how proud they should be of their governor for his willingness to answer his nation’s call.

Finally, I knew that because Jon is not only a Republican, but a Republican who co-chaired my opponent’s campaign for the presidency, this wouldn’t be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party.

But here’s what I also know. I know that Jon is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation. That’s what Jon has always done. Throughout his career, Jon has shown a willingness to move beyond the old ideologies and stale debates that all too often bring progress to a standstill. Time and again, he’s brought people together across party lines to overcome our common challenges and to move our nation forward.

What Jon brings to this post isn’t just a steadfast commitment to advancing the interests of the American people; it’s a lifetime of knowledge and experience that will help advance this important partnership. Jon brings to this post experience as a former ambassador to Singapore, who’s intimately familiar with many of the most pressing challenges confronting Asia. He brings experience both in the private sector and as Deputy United States Trade Representative to Asia and Africa, where he stood up for America’s economic interests abroad. And Jon is well prepared to build a partnership that reflects a new understanding between our two countries because he’s lived in Asia three times and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

That’s the kind of ambassador we need in China –- an ambassador who has a respect for China’s proud traditions, who understands what it will take to make America more competitive in the 21st century, and who will be an unstinting advocate for America’s interests and ideals. With Jon Huntsman representing the United States in China, I’m confident that we will launch a new era of partnership between our two nations that will advance our shared dreams of opportunity and security in America, in Asia, and around the world.

So I’m extraordinarily pleased to announce that Jon Huntsman will be our ambassador to China, and I can think of no more important assignment than creating the kinds of bridges between our two countries that will determine the well-being not just of Americans and Chinese, but also the future of the world.

So, with that, I’d like to have Jon say a few words. Thank you, Jon.

GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN: Well, Mr. President, thank you for those very kind and gracious words. I never expected to be standing here under the inquisitive gaze of George Washington, and equally inquisitive gaze of my wife. Nor did I expect, as national co-chair of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign, to be called into action by the person who beat us.

But I grew up understanding that the most basic responsibility one has is service to country. When the President of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that, to me, is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge.

I stand here in my final term as governor with plenty to do. I wasn’t looking for a new job in life, but a call from the President changed that.

So, Mr. President, I humbly accept your call to service, and I understand that doing so will carry with it some unique challenges.

So, first and foremost, I want to recognize my wife and best friend, Mary Kaye, and my family, many of whom are here today, who have always been willing to heed the call of public service. I am here today solely as a result of their love and support.

Second, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the people of the greatest state in America. Life’s greatest honor has been to serve the people of Utah as their 16th governor.

Finally, I must thank you, Mr. President, for your trust and confidence in me and my family’s ability to contribute meaningfully to one of America’s most important strategic bilateral relationships. You have my commitment that we will take the U.S.-China relationship to new heights, focused not just on that which divides us, but more importantly, on that which unites us, knowing that this will be critical for lasting peace and prosperity for citizens on both sides of the Pacific.

I’m reminded of my favorite Chinese aphorism. It goes something like this: (Speaks in Mandarin Chinese.) “Together we work, together we progress.” This, more than anything else, I think captures the spirit of our journey going forward.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bush-Cheney, Torture and Iraq

By on 15 May 2009

The Republicans want to make sure that they don’t go down on Bush-Cheney torture, so they’ve decided to try to drag Speaker Pelosi down into it. They may have miscalculated because Pelosi is fighting back. The most extraordinary take on the fight that just boiled over comes from Dan Baltz.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extraordinary accusation that the Bush administration lied to Congress about the use of harsh interrogation techniques dramatically raised the stakes in the growing debate over the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies even as it raised some questions about the speaker’s credibility.

… But in attempting to defend herself, Pelosi took the remarkable step of trying to shift the focus of blame to the CIA and the Bush administration, claiming that the CIA accounts represented a diversionary tactic in the real debate over the interrogation policies. That amounted to a virtual declaration of war against the CIA at a time when the Obama administration already has rattled morale at the agency with the release of Justice Department memos authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques.

Someone needs to tell me why it’s an “extraordinary accusation” that the Bush administration lied to Congress.

This is our problem and has been since the run up to the Iraq war. Many in the traditional media were, and evidently still are, willing to ignore what was done by the Bush White House on the run up to the war, which now includes the bombshell that Dick Cheney wanted people waterboarded hoping their flushed out confessions would lead to the WMDs that went missing.

As for Obama’s problems with the “rattles morale at the agency,” well, tough. We’ve got bigger problems than an unwilling President to do the job he promised, or turning the page from the cherry-picking, stove piping CIA of the Bush-Cheney years. Let them sweat.

Yesterday the Bush-Cheney torture plot thickened, advancing a horrific possibility that could change this debate forever. Did Dick Cheney push torture to try to get evidence on WMD in Iraq? After the invasion failed to lead to Saddam’s alleged stockpiles, did Dick Cheney push torture to prove they were right?

Robert Windrem has evidence that leads to the answer:

In his new book, Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq, and in an interview with The Daily Beast, Duelfer says he heard from “some in Washington at very senior levels (not in the CIA),” who thought Khudayr’s interrogation had been “too gentle” and suggested another route, one that they believed has proven effective elsewhere. “They asked if enhanced measures, such as waterboarding, should be used,” Duelfer writes. “The executive authorities addressing those measures made clear that such techniques could legally be applied only to terrorism cases, and our debriefings were not as yet terrorism-related. The debriefings were just debriefings, even for this creature.”

Duelfer will not disclose who in Washington had proposed the use of waterboarding, saying only: “The language I can use is what has been cleared.” In fact, two senior U.S. intelligence officials at the time tell The Daily Beast that the suggestion to waterboard came from the Office of Vice President Cheney.…

But what people are missing is that if we don’t follow the threads we’ll never be able to turn this page. That what Vice President Dick Cheney did or wanted done or pushed to have done will be on all of us. If President Obama doesn’t do anything about it, however, we will never be rid of it.

Peter Daou nails it:

But as always, the progressive community, a far more efficient thinking machine than a handful of strategists and advisers, is looking ahead and raising a unified alarm. The message is this: anything less than absolute moral clarity from Democrats, who now control the levers of power, will enshrine Bush’s abuses and undermine the rule of law for generations to come.

However, as I’ve been saying for a while now, the results of Obama ignoring the gravity of this situation go way beyond the immediate. While the Republicans target Pelosi, Dick Cheney’s side bet continue to rides, which I wrote about days ago. That he can develop a narrative and put it into the political bloodstream that America allegedly became “less safe” the moment Obama began dismantling the Bush-Cheney torture policies. He’s betting that when the day comes that we’re hit again, whenever that is, he can point to that day, when he was warning that Bush-Cheney policies kept us safe. With Cheney believing all the blame will then fall on Democrats, because people have short memories, with the Rep. having another chapter in the “Dems are soft on national security” book they can exploit. Cynical, but that’s Cheney. He’s seeing down the field. Dems are not. This needs to change and fast.

We need to find out if the allegations against Cheney on torture and the Iraq war are real, because this goes beyond simply keeping America safe. It goes to the tactics used by the Bush administration and the lengths they would go to in order to save themselves. Remember back to when no WMDs were found? The Republican argument for preemptive war and their foreign policy collapsed on this revelation. That we went to war on a lie. If torture is wrapped up in proving the Iraq war was worth it, the lies that took us into Iraq will be compounded, Bush-Cheney’s role in torture fully revealed. They tortured to save themselves.

Read full story · Comments are closed